The All Things Political Topic - All people love themselves too much to be changed by something as simple as love.

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, Sarex said:

What does that mean...

It means the truth, Russia doesnt want any country allied to it to  become a new  Constitutional Democracy. So Putin will  protect the dictators and authoritarian leadership with all Russian allies

 They dont care about stabilizing Kazakhstan, the Russian troops will ensure the current president stays in power. Same as Belarus 

[Guard Dog]

Haven't been following the news much. But I saw this morning someone actually convinced the Orange Menace that having a press conference about the riot he incited on the anniversary of the day he incited it was a bad idea. 

I'm surprised actually. He never struck me as a man who took advice. 

[Sarex]

56 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

It means the truth, Russia doesnt want any country allied to it to  become a new  Constitutional Democracy. So Putin will  protect the dictators and authoritarian leadership with all Russian allies

 They dont care about stabilizing Kazakhstan, the Russian troops will ensure the current president stays in power. Same as Belarus 

The west will protect dictators when it suits and serves their interests. Montenegro has a dictator in power for 30 years now, for reference longer than even the Belorussian president.

[BruceVC]

26 minutes ago, Sarex said:

The west will protect dictators when it suits and serves their interests. Montenegro has a dictator in power for 30 years now, for reference longer than even the Belorussian president.

Im not sure whataboutism is helpful now? We talking about Russia and its soldiers being deployed to Kazakhstan arent we ?

Edited January 6, 2022 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

21 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Im not sure whataboutism is helpful now? We talking about Russia and its soldiers being deployed to Kazakhstan arent we ?

But BruceVC they are fighting against local Kazakhstan equivalent of BLM movement

[Hurlshort]

Biden is talking about the Capitol Riot and I have it on in the background. I'm not sure why anyone would watch this stuff closely, it seems like a snooze fest. Which is actually amazing, because in only a year we are back to pretty boring politics as usual instead of the frenetic stress fest that was the previous administration.

[BruceVC]

43 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

Biden is talking about the Capitol Riot and I have it on in the background. I'm not sure why anyone would watch this stuff closely, it seems like a snooze fest. Which is actually amazing, because in only a year we are back to pretty boring politics as usual instead of the frenetic stress fest that was the previous administration.

Yeah, its well known. Biden is not the most riveting public speaker and he  induces somnolence 

But we all know that so its not the end of the world 

[Sarex]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Im not sure whataboutism is helpful now? We talking about Russia and its soldiers being deployed to Kazakhstan arent we ?

We are talking about any country "helping" another country.

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Haven't been following the news much. But I saw this morning someone actually convinced the Orange Menace that having a press conference about the insurrection he incited on the anniversary of the day he incited it was a bad idea. 

I'm surprised actually. He never struck me as a man who took advice. 

fixed.

you will get there eventual.

HA! Good Fun!

[majestic]

16 hours ago, Gorth said:

Kazakhstan had no democratic culture.

What does that even mean?

Looking back at our own history, we had five hundred years of hereditary monarchy that only ended after aristocratic rule was abolished by law - after said aristocracy caused what was later known as the great seminal catastrophe of the 20th century. The parties quickly created their own armed militias, and before long shots were fired and we were back to a dictatorship. Hello failed state. That was less than a century ago. France had a revolution and before long was ruled by an emperor again.

If the people of Kazakhstan want to riot and overthrow their autocratic leadership, then let them. If they want to string up the leeches exploting them, then... give them rope, but otherwise, stay out of it. A society can't mature or establish a democratic culture (assuming that is even what they want) if it's not allowed to make mistakes along the way. Unlike with France a ways back or the more recent second world war, a failed democracy in Kazakhstan is unlikely to cover half the world in conflict, is it?

Not surprised that Bruce is in favor of securing natural resources Kazakhstan by force, but you? Mr. Anarchist?

Anyway, the point is pretty moot regardless. Russia is going to deal with the issue and that's that. The West will complain a bit, but secretly be all right with. The end.

16 hours ago, Gorth said:

They wouldn’t know what to do with democracy no matter how many bombs you drop on them.

Obviously. You can't force cultural change from the outside. Well, no, that's wrong. You can, but that requires draconian measures and the active eradication of the established culture, and it takes a while (you could, for instance, invade Gaul, put two thirds of the male population to the sword and then gift women, children and their former belongings to your soldiers, and you'll have a very loyal province pretty soon ).

Edited January 6, 2022 by majestic

[Malcador]

45 minutes ago, majestic said:

You can't force cultural change from the outside.

Well, you can also do it the long, slow way through influencing activists in the country.  Can't kill ideas with bullets, and all.  Although you can, but in that case the leadership you're trying to topple will kill all their people so not your fault.

[Guard Dog]

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

fixed.

you will get there eventual.

HA! Good Fun!

I really do not want you to think I'm soft selling the 1/6 riot. I'm not. When you use words like "insurrection" I think of Hugh Henry Brackenridge and his 7k militiamen marching on Pittsburgh and attacking the mail. I think of John Brown. South Carolina seceding and then firing on Fort Sumter. Now THAT was an overreaction to an election. Heck I'd even throw in the Cliven Bundy incident as an insurrection, albeit a bloodless one. 

But Jan 6, they didn't have a plan. Not the rank and file at least. There were certainly some true villains that day. The worst of which will likely never get his comeuppance. But most of them had to know there was nothing they were going to do that would change anything other than landing them all in prison. Or dead. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

I don't want to paint them as innocent sheep who were manipulated into doing what they did. Although there is an grain of truth in that. They deserve prison time and most of them are already doing it. Probably less of it than they deserve.  But to call it and insurrection? I just can't get there. It was a riot. A mob. If the BLM riots that DID turn violent and burn neighborhoods and attack police were NOT an insurrection how can 1/6 be? 

Like we've discussed before there are numerous scenarios where I would feel justified turning my guns against my government and countrymen. None of them have happened. None of them are even close! Rioting in the US Capital because you're mad your team lost an election is not rational. Rebellions are rational. They have goals. Actions with expected outcomes. Just criminals doing crime. 

Am I wrong here? 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

58 minutes ago, majestic said:

What does that even mean?

Who knows? Democracy has been thrown around so much it means very little these days. Virtually every country that isn't explicitly a monarchy likes to call themselves a democracy or republic. Almost all have leaders who live in ridiculous luxury as well.

1 hour ago, majestic said:

If the people of Kazakhstan want to riot and overthrow their autocratic leadership, then let them.

It seems very much that uprisings are becoming more widespread and more frequent. Maybe the 21st century just isn't working out?

Regardless the people of Kazakhstan are in the right with this uprising.

1 hour ago, majestic said:

you could, for instance, invade Gaul, put two thirds of the male population to the sword and then gift women, children and their former belongings to your soldiers, and you'll have a very loyal province pretty soon

Let's not give someone any ideas here.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

 

Am I wrong here? 

yes. 

they (all too many) insurrectionists were attempting to prevent biden from being certified as the next President o' the US. you going all bruce on us and invoking blm summer protests is making us wonder if you has been brainwashed by all the alt-right radio you listen to. were the f'ing Capitol, while Congressmen were in session as they ratified the results o' the most recent Presidential election. january 6 most assured were not random acts o' vandalism directed at empty freaking buildings which were targeted only as some kinda vague representation o' state or fed authority. no, molotov ****tails hurled at a police station in some rando state is not, in and of itself, any kinda evidence o' insurrection and you know that.

seriously, what is wrong with you folks? somehow you take the summer protests collectively and balance them 'gainst january 6. try and find a leader or plan for the summer protests and link the vandalism o' one police station and another federal court house as somehow part o' a greater and more sinister whole to undermine The Government? have seen how you are able to do such with burisma and biden so no doubt you has self-hypnotized the guy in the mirror into believing the doggerel you hear on the radio. the thing is even if you do engage in the most implausible mental gymnastics and compare The Summer Protests (as if they were a recognizable and insular event) with January 6, you still ain't accounting for the fact you had a representative o' the US freaking Government, the POTUS no less, directing a mob (of course a mob is by its very nature disorganized. duh.) to interfere with the ratification of the freaking Presidential election, while Congressmen, the Vice President and many nameless staff and security people were occupying the Capitol. 

no self awareness. how wrong were you 'bout 45... and you know you has been wrong 'bout 45. we could list all the ways but would be spam.

clearly the former guy believed pence could and should send votes back to the states, where republican legislatures would then invalidate the original slates o' votes submitted to Congress. we know this 'cause we has heard from numerous individuals such as peter navarro that such were the plan, and that hundreds o' republican Congressmen were in on the plan. the mob, directed to go to the Capitol, were clear intended to pressure those ambivalent republican lawmakers to go along with the onrushing tide, and failing such, trump could take advantage o' the ensuing chaos. you got reports o' US generals extreme high in the chain o' command expressing their concern that trump would take advantage of post election chaos to try and use troops to keep himself in power.

there were clear a plan. there were most obvious an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer o' power. there were indeed many thousands o' people who invaded the Capitol intent on preventing biden from being certified as the next President. was the efforts disorganized? 'course they were. your history sucks, 'cause most revolutions and rebellions look disorganized, particularly if they is unsuccessful. trump were leading the efforts, so almost by definition it were gonna be haphazard, chaotic and messy. part o' the effort to prevent the biden being certified as 46 were the sending a mob to the Capitol and mobs is inherent disorganized.

perhaps worst o' all, what you still refuse to accept is just how close a thing it were 'tween trump failure and success. a handful o' people making different choices. keep in mind pence were one o' the stop the steal advocates POST election. you, and all too many republicans, independents and democrats just don't get it. to you folks, january 6 were bad and it were lurid tv, but it were exaggerated by some and regardless it failed. foolishness. refusal to accept how dangerous were january 6 and how close a thing it were is precise why so few is trying to make certain it is impossible for such to happen again. point o' fact, the opposite is taking place. republicans have a plan as they did january 6, and they is thinking ahead to make the next election they lose go different. 

you learned nothing during four years o' trump, so why should we think you would learn something in one year since the insurrection, but 'course is all rationalization bs. they are all bad. this willful ignorance is necessary to maintain your singular driving ideological focus: they are all bad. the thing is, even you can't do they are all bad if trump were the guiding force o' an insurrection. muslim ban, burying ig reports, federal agents in white vans arresting people off the streets o' portland w/o probable cause or even accusation o' crime. etc. you managed to ignore it all, but the insurrection requires a different level o' willful obtuse, but a necessary one to maintain, they are all bad. 

too many americans didn't learn a darn thing since january 6, 2021. shame on you all.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Gromnir

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Well, you can also do it the long, slow way through influencing activists in the country.  Can't kill ideas with bullets, and all.  Although you can, but in that case the leadership you're trying to topple will kill all their people so not your fault.

Yes, you're right, and you could also keep the territory occupied for decades, investing enough resources and personnel to properly secure everything and help the people. That could work, but there is no guarantee, but who has the patience (or the money) for that in this day and age. More like, you'll be getting another Iraq or Afghanistan. I guess Bush really believed that there's a little American in every Iraqi, just waiting to be released.

The sad part is, it really could have gone better, but what was it that Sun Tzu once wrote, the victorious warrior wins first and then goes to war, while the defeated warrior goes to war and seeks to win. Sometimes that really holds true, huh?

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, majestic said:

What does that even mean?

In order to have a successful transition to Democracy you need certain things to be present. Most of which aren't in Kazakhstan. You need lots of CIA involvement and slush money aid promises, a border with a western aligned country for agents provocateur to cross and a convenient figurehead to have been set up to 'win' the 'election'. See Guiado, Hadi, Karzai etc. Kazakhstan has none of that.

Minus the sarcasm, in order to have a successful transition to Democracy you also need certain things to be present. It's kind of pointless listing them because none are absolutely necessary, and in this situation they're irrelevant anyway.

The practicalities and realpolitik are that they cannot succeed. Revolutions work when the ruling party/ class either cannot or will not fight effectively, or when the military and police refuse to act. You can supplement either of those with not having a far more populous neighbour who is willing to prop up the status quo (or tear it down, though that doesn't apply in this case).

In this case the leadership won't go, the military and police won't switch sides, and Russia doesn't want anarchy- and, inevitably, another islamist insurgency- on its southern flank and in a country where a quarter of the population is Russian. And Kazakhstan, especially with Afghanistan gone, is strategically irrelevant to anyone who would actually support them, except as a way to poison the well for Russia.

And that means Syria 2.0, ie no real attempt to change things positively for the general population beyond lip service and self serving White Man's Burden fabulism such as the myth of the 'moderate democratic opposition' which would sweep to power on the wings of hot air and wishful thinking vs the reality of the opposition being nutbar islamists armed by the- and to be fair to them, they did a fantastic job of their actual aim of asterisking the country semi permanently- CIA with TOWs etc from day one; but an awful lot of anarchy generation and maintenance because it will cause trouble for others.

Theoretically yeah, aux armes citoyens formez vos bataillons go chop up some kleptocratic oligarchs and hooray for all that good liberté fraternité and egalité stuff. Practically, anyone encouraging the protesters is supporting a bunch of people committing suicide, at best, or who are going to get another 250k people pointlessly killed at worst (though this won't happen though, for the above reasons).

Edited January 7, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

Fingers Crossed! QAnon Faithful Await the Return of JFK Jr. on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas

these folks is still showing up in dallas by the scores, but @Guard Dogcan't believe same folks thought they could really pull off the green bay sweep  promoted on conservative radio by folks such as steve bannon, and clear embraced by potus and at least 147 republicans who even after the events o' january 6 objected to certifying the results o' the Presidential election. keep in mind those gop Congressmen objecting to the election, other than perhaps paul gossar, were not insane and most were not idiots.

so, who is more delusional, the qanon folks or gd?

HA! Good Fun!

[rjshae]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I really do not want you to think I'm soft selling the 1/6 riot. I'm not. When you use words like "insurrection" I think of Hugh Henry Brackenridge and his 7k militiamen marching on Pittsburgh and attacking the mail. I think of John Brown. South Carolina seceding and then firing on Fort Sumter. Now THAT was an overreaction to an election. Heck I'd even throw in the Cliven Bundy incident as an insurrection, albeit a bloodless one. 

But Jan 6, they didn't have a plan. Not the rank and file at least. There were certainly some true villains that day. The worst of which will likely never get his comeuppance. But most of them had to know there was nothing they were going to do that would change anything other than landing them all in prison. Or dead. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

I don't want to paint them as innocent sheep who were manipulated into doing what they did. Although there is an grain of truth in that. They deserve prison time and most of them are already doing it. Probably less of it than they deserve.  But to call it and insurrection? I just can't get there. It was a riot. A mob. If the BLM riots that DID turn violent and burn neighborhoods and attack police were NOT an insurrection how can 1/6 be? 

Like we've discussed before there are numerous scenarios where I would feel justified turning my guns against my government and countrymen. None of them have happened. None of them are even close! Rioting in the US Capital because you're mad your team lost an election is not rational. Rebellions are rational. They have goals. Actions with expected outcomes. Just criminals doing crime. 

Am I wrong here? 

It fits the dictionary definition of insurrection. The fact that it was inept and leaderless (after Trump departed) does not erase that stain.

[Hurlshort]

I don't get the John Brown/Harper's Ferry reference at all, GD. That was just 22 people. I guess it was more organized, but I can't see how it really compares. It went way worse for the insurrectionists, too.

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, majestic said:

What does that even mean?

Looking back at our own history, we had five hundred years of hereditary monarchy that only ended after aristocratic rule was abolished by law - after said aristocracy caused what was later known as the great seminal catastrophe of the 20th century. The parties quickly created their own armed militias, and before long shots were fired and we were back to a dictatorship. Hello failed state. That was less than a century ago. France had a revolution and before long was ruled by an emperor again.

If the people of Kazakhstan want to riot and overthrow their autocratic leadership, then let them. If they want to string up the leeches exploting them, then... give them rope, but otherwise, stay out of it. A society can't mature or establish a democratic culture (assuming that is even what they want) if it's not allowed to make mistakes along the way. Unlike with France a ways back or the more recent second world war, a failed democracy in Kazakhstan is unlikely to cover half the world in conflict, is it?

Not surprised that Bruce is in favor of securing natural resources Kazakhstan by force, but you? Mr. Anarchist?

Anyway, the point is pretty moot regardless. Russia is going to deal with the issue and that's that. The West will complain a bit, but secretly be all right with. The end.

Obviously. You can't force cultural change from the outside. Well, no, that's wrong. You can, but that requires draconian measures and the active eradication of the established culture, and it takes a while (you could, for instance, invade Gaul, put two thirds of the male population to the sword and then gift women, children and their former belongings to your soldiers, and you'll have a very loyal province pretty soon ).

When it comes to our political views this may be the first time  I agree with you, yaaaaay. I always knew we could find common ground. What I agree with is this point  

" Anyway, the point is pretty moot regardless. Russia is going to deal with the issue and that's that. The West will complain a bit, but secretly be all right with. The end "

I agree that we must let Russia deal with this, Kazakhstan is in their geopolitical backyard and as long as the EU or the USA doesnt have to commit resources  or be expected to absorb immigrants if the country collapses I think Russia should  help

But what confuses me is I always thought you , and many other forum members, were opposed to military invention generally by foreign countries  and respected the sovereignty of countries? Like in Libya where some incorrectly blame the West for death of Gaddafi and the economic state of the country..

So what is it, do you support military intervention when it comes to keeping failed leadership in place or are you only opposed to it when Western countries intervene ? Or do you only support foreign military intervention  when it comes to keeping leadership in power but not removing leadership ?

Because you know I support legitimate regime change in several countries and it will be great to get your support in the future 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

[hint]Australia could use a regime change![/hint]

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

It fits the dictionary definition of insurrection. The fact that it was inept and leaderless (after Trump departed) does not erase that stain.

Im still not convinced we can call the Capitol violence an insurrection, the semantics do  matter. Yes it was violence and yes we should all be concerned and yes people must continue to be arrested but it lacked any long term planning to be a called a credible insurrection, here is a good link that discusses this ( with the current inquiries this may need to be updated )

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-jan-6/ar-AANxOuQ

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Gorth said:

[hint]Australia could use a regime change![/hint]

 

Are you forming an  Oz militia Gorthfuscious and planning to overthrow the current government....do tell 

[Gromnir]

...

so, tucker carlson is the gop's thulsa doom?

ted cruz ain't a beautiful girl by any stretch o' the imagination, but with a few choice words from tucker, ted were nevertheless were willing to hurl himself off the cliff's edge. the fish stick fortune heir is giving lessons in power to a US senator? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

...

so, tucker carlson is the gop's thulsa doom?

ted cruz ain't a beautiful girl by any stretch o' the imagination, but with a few choice words from tucker, ted were nevertheless were willing to hurl himself off the cliff's edge. the fish stick fortune heir is giving lessons in power to a US senator? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Its always entertaining, but disappointing , to see the likes of Ted Cruz squirm when he is confronted by his own doublespeak and hypocrisy

And Cruz shouldnt be using the word terrorism to justify all violence against cops unless it is related to terrorism. So BLM and Antifa violence against cops is not terrorism but it is criminal behavior and needs to condemned in the harshest terms

And I wouldnt consider 6 January Capitol attacks as terrorism either but rather violent riots?

But  some people in  the US  media really love playing the " the left\right media always generalize about our  political motives " card ....Carlson is one of the masters of this