53 replies to this topic

[Fox Fire]

 

Of course, it was never sold like that. If he had come out and asked his people "Hey would you rather live in a Democracy or a Dictatorship?" the answer would have been clear. He's still not selling it like that, and if you were to ask your average Putin supporter, they would without a doubt say that they live in a free Democracy.

The bottom line is that your average voter is gullible and really doesn't have a clue. Yes, I'm an Elitist.

 

Perfect example of what I just mentioned. 

Fact is, when Putin de-democratized Russia, it wasn't just accepted, it was in fact popular. By every means. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant of Russian culture, politics and history. Yeltsin was hated by Russians for being too democratic, too much of a pushover, and perceived as being a leader who caved to west on demand. 

The reality of Russia is in it's precedents. Forever, Russia has been held together and ruled by strong leaders who establish their authority through force. Not until Yeltsin was this precedent changed. After his popularity tanked he was forced to hand over power to an ambitious man named Putin. 

Now sure, not everyone in Russia likes Putin. Plenty of Russians hate him. But those same Russians who hate him are probably not the democracy loving people that the US government would want you to think they are. 

In fact, the largest political parties in the Russian Federation are as follows (in order of popularity):

1. United Russia

2. Communist Party of the Russian Federation

3. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia

 

Now let's take a look at these top 3, since they account for the huge, huge majority or Russia. 

 

#1: We have Putins party. The original democratic party and rulers of Russia with an iron fist. What else can be said that you don't already know?

#2: We have the communist party. I don't think I need to tell anyone, Russian or otherwise how badly communism failed. Is going back to that a better option?

#3: Despite it's name, the LDPR is basically the same as NSDP. It's a party of far right nationalists who believe in imperialism and racial supremacy. Want to repeat WW2? Vote for them. 

 

So with all that out of the way, the simple reality of Russia is that it's being held together by a corrupt president, or dictator if that's what we want to call him. Russia is just as diverse as the US, but it's not a 2 party system over there led by the same exact agenda. It's a much more real democracy where voting for someone else actually means some very serious change. 

 

So I would ask all critics of Putin, if not him, then who? Who else would you feel more comfortable with in charge? Who do you think Russians would feel more comfortable with in charge? The Communists? The Nazis? I think Putin is the middle ground we all want. 

Problem for the US government, is that he isn't a puppet like Yeltsin was. Putin does what he actually thinks is best for Russia. Not just what we tell him is best. 

In this regard, he has my respect. Even despite my disagreeing with many of his policies and actions. 

[Fox Fire]

While I genrally agree with the sentiment that Iran is less destructive in many aspects than Saudi Arabia, let's not go too overboard with the praise. While they have indeed never declared a "proper" offensive war (we're talking about the Islamic Republic era), I wouldn't exactly say they're peaceful, when prayers to this day regularly include a wish for the complete annihilation of Israel. As for exual right for women? LOL. Try attending a volley ball match (https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/30/banned-stadiums-being-woman-iran) Here are some other Iranian gender-equality measures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Iran#Women_and_the_Iranian_Revolution

 

Of course Iran hates Israel (and the US). There is even a massive painting across a building a Tehran that says "death to the US" or something like that. But it's only fair to keep in mind that these countries were actively working against the current Iranian regime since before they really took power. Any regime in this situation would be expected to do so, especially when relations have not been normalized for decades. 

We can say the same of North Korea. Sure, NK is ruled by a psycho that the world would be better off without. But people should also understand that North Korea has been under siege from day one. Why do they hate us so much? Because we were hating them long before hating us was popular. And for no other reason than the cold war and "communism is evil".

Same portrait with Iran. Ideologically, they were necessarily opposed to most of their neighbors. We sided with numbers because we were already aligned with Sunni regimes and their former govt. Normal relations at this point would mean slashing at other relations we deem more important. 

 

I never said women's rights in Iran were anything like in the west. It's a hardline Islamic country practicing Islamic law. But in comparison to Saudi Arabia, it's a god damn paradise from heaven itself. I don't mean to praise Iran here, but I really do love to use Iran as a great example of how hypocritical our foreign policy is when compared to our grand ally, Saudi Arabia, epitome and epicenter of all Salafi Jihadism. The very face of everything we've spent the last 15+ years fighting. 

It's ironic, sickening and terrible sad how many people never mention it because they never hear it.

[ccabal86]

Well, the issue of NK is more complicated, as it's the real world equivalent to what what Orwell described in his 1984. As such, It's a unique case not quite comparable to anything else. Christopher Hitchens famously called NK " a nation of racist dwarves" for the reason that they are taught from birth that they are the worl'ds master race and anyone else is generically inferior. The dwarf comes from the fact that they are a good deal shorter than their southern relatives due to malnutrition.

What I'm trying to say, is that all this goes well beyond a normal reaction to being threatened.

BTW, there is a brilliant podcsat on the topic of NK, if you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend it:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/must-we-accept-a-nuclear-north-korea

[onbekende]

 

Was just good old Rep vs Dem, neither sides rabid supports made this happen, it was the silent "not X" that did it.

Wrong. It was just good old American vs Pakistan. Let's not forget geography. My vote was the one that counted.

 

 

Huh? please explain this one in more then those 4 sentences...

 

 

 

1. The people of the Middle East are not ready nor are they willing to accept Democracy. A limited Monarchy seems to be the sweet spot in terms of general population happiness and relative peace. Middle Eastern nations have been run by a Theocracy or a Monarchy for thousands of years. Its only natural the masses wouldn't immediately flock towards the support of a new form of government.

 

It is not the masses that is the issue, it is the 1% with power (or power dreams) that are. It is just that much more viable to rule by force in the Middle East then it would be in the Western world.

 

Transition is certainly needed instead of radical change (in any direction), but to outright claim that the ME inhabitants are nothing but "big chief worshippers" is a stretch. It isn't like The West is a true democracy in itself anyway...

 

This delusion the west has that democracy is what everyone wants is jut that, a delusion. In Russia, Putin came to power and removed a lot of democracy by popular demand. 

Whats best for some may not be best for all. Culture shock can really take people for a loop.  

 

 

Nobody wants democracy cause everyone is a narcissist on some level, giving everyone some power (how imaginairy it may be) does help to strike a balance.

 

Doesn't mean that people have enough ego to work with the narcissism, hence we have "the silent masses". Alot of nations just work cause of various states of personal bewilderment. If you can satiate the personal narcissist, you can do whatever you want on the side. A ruler shouldn't worry about his subjects ego, he should placate their present desire (how imaginary that may be to said person) and he can rule another day.

[Lysistrata]

Huh? please explain this one in more then those 4 sentences...

I am a Republican. I am an American. I voted for Donald Trump.

Rafay is not a Democrat. Rafay is a Pakistani. He voted for no one.

Was 6 more sentences a sufficient explanation?

[SeaBeeGipson]

 

Huh? please explain this one in more then those 4 sentences...

I am a Republican. I am an American. I voted for Donald Trump.

Rafay is not a Democrat. Rafay is a Pakistani. He voted for no one.

Was 6 more sentences a sufficient explanation?

 

Can I buy a 7th?

[onbekende]

I was just saying I thought the 2016 POTUS Election was more decided in a Rep vs Dem basis (by the silent masses) then on the sexism Rafay linked it to (and said you were guilty off, which for the record I don't think you are guilty off, you are just incredible partisan).

 

If you want to debate over the "outside commentators" of your elections or about "our (foreighn) interest" in their process and results, sure we can go there.

[Lysistrata]

Oh I'm sorry Betsy. I misunderstood your statement. I agree with you about 75%. A Lot of Trump supporters voted for Obama.

[ccabal86]

Btw, if someone is still confused whether Assad is better than ISIS, just listen to this, as it really hits the point home: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

 

On that note, you may or may not like Sam Harris, but one thing cannot be argued: he makes CRYSTAL clear points with no attempt to ever obfuscate things. A rarity these days.

[Fox Fire]

Btw, if someone is still confused whether Assad is better than ISIS, just listen to this, as it really hits the point home: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

 

On that note, you may or may not like Sam Harris, but one thing cannot be argued: he makes CRYSTAL clear points with no attempt to ever obfuscate things. A rarity these days.

Excellent explanation, though there are a few details I don't really agree with. Our foreign policy, post colonialism and things like Sykes-Pikot are certainly part of the equation. His rejection of "self doubt" as he calls it is wrong. "It takes two to tango" as they say. 

[ccabal86]

I don't think he says that colonialism, and foreign policy mistakes do not at all constitute to the problems of the Middle East, that's not the topic of this particular podcast. His point is that ISIS's ideology does not at all concern itself with any particular FP, and is entirely centered on theology. That is not to say that ISIS as an organization hadn't benefited from botched policies.

[Fox Fire]

I don't think he says that colonialism, and foreign policy mistakes do not at all constitute to the problems of the Middle East, that's not the topic of this particular podcast. His point is that ISIS's ideology does not at all concern itself with any particular FP, and is entirely centered on theology. That is not to say that ISIS as an organization hadn't benefited from botched policies.

Yes indeed. However, it should also be mentioned that ISIS is a unique form of Salafi Jihadism that does indeed focus on theology rather than politics. In fact, they had no intention to wage war on the west until after they had "cleansed" the Muslim world itself. The (mostly) internal focus on theology and obsession with death is what separates them from other Jihadist groups.

[Shahenshah]

 

Was just good old Rep vs Dem, neither sides rabid supports made this happen, it was the silent "not X" that did it.

Wrong. It was just good old American vs Pakistan. Let's not forget geography. My vote was the one that counted.

 

I didnt even step in yet. o/

[ccabal86]

I don't think he says that colonialism, and foreign policy mistakes do not at all constitute to the problems of the Middle East, that's not the topic of this particular podcast. His point is that ISIS's ideology does not at all concern itself with any particular FP, and is entirely centered on theology. That is not to say that ISIS as an organization hadn't benefited from botched policies.

Yes indeed. However, it should also be mentioned that ISIS is a unique form of Salafi Jihadism that does indeed focus on theology rather than politics. In fact, they had no intention to wage war on the west until after they had "cleansed" the Muslim world itself. The (mostly) internal focus on theology and obsession with death is what separates them from other Jihadist groups.

Yes, herein lies a difference between "classic" Al Quaeda and ISIS. AQ always operated as an international franchise, while ISIS' main goal was to carve out its Caliphate in areas of power vacuum. Fortunately the podcast is from 2016, and a lot has happened since. The more recent issues of Dabiq are badly edited and littered with grammatical errors. Likely a sign that the skilled editors were bombed.