wow, this thread really went off the rails. I think we need to separate the US/Russia debate from the Putin one, because one really has nothing to do with the other. Is there any doubt Putin is one bad dude?
Quite frankly, I'm not sure why anyone would defend him.
CliffFletcher said it already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Putin is a murderous, anti-democratic tyrant who uses violence and the threat of violence to suppress any opposition to his rule.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
The US has done and continues to do many things both domestically and internationally that are immoral, unethical and likely illegal. However, comparing the US presently (even a Trump 'led' US) is a false equivalency. The very fact that Trump admires Putin and wishes he could be more like Putin is a good indicator that the US is miles ahead of Russia when it comes to human rights and international policy.
In fact, many of the things that some people hold up as atrocities of US policy were part of policies that were intended to defend the US and it's allies from the real and/or imagined Soviet threat: Vietnam, Afghanistan, puppet dictatorships in Central/South America, etc. were all mostly in response to the threat of Soviet imperialism. The US certainly made mistakes and is not squeaky clean by any standards. But for those that even consider the two governments equally reprehensible should go spend some time in Russia.
And for those that think Russia today is anything similar to the Soviet Union are also out to lunch and should also go spend some time in Russia.
Last edited by Red Slinger; 11-04-2017 at 06:13 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
I assume you are joking, but the insinuation that murdering and imprisoning journalists for social and political criticism is not something that is funny in any context. It is heinous.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
You're completely missing the point. People are criticizing Ovechkin for supporting Vladimir Putin, not for being patriotic. You can be a patriotic Russian without being a vocal supporter of a guy who subverted whatever shaky democracy and liberalism post-Soviet Russia mustered to rule today as an iron-fisted autocrat.
If Putin were the leader of the United States, Anderson Cooper, Ariana Huffington, and George Soros would be dead, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olberman, and Mark Zuckerberg would be in jail, and the rest of the media and business opposition to the president would be cowed into silence out of fear for their lives. Black and gay activists would be fired from their jobs and threatened with prison, not subjected to obnoxious tweets.
Putin is a murderous, anti-democratic tyrant who uses violence and the threat of violence to suppress any opposition to his rule. It's absurd to equate the regime he heads to the U.S. government today.
No, it isn't absurd at all. In fact, it is absurd NOT to do so.
So democracy. Tell me, what is it? Let's look at the US' First Amendment to start.
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What the heck happened during the Occupy movement?
This was not an isolated incident. Right across the USA, police brazenly and violently put a stop to many protests by force, even though in many cases the students offered no resistance other than to refuse to get up. They were pepper-sprayed, tear gassed, beaten.... whatever means necessary. So people have the right to protest... usually? How about the USA's use of torture? Again, it is an illegal act, but for some reason it is ok if the USA does it, occasionally.
If you really think that the USA has actual media freedom, think again. Who controls the media companies? Why is there such a rift between Fox News and other establishments? Is one really more 'honest' than the other? Look at who owns each media company, and it should lead to multinational company that has spent millions and millions on electing a certain side, and has spent millions and millions on lobbying whatever side wins to act in its' interests (even if they conflict with those of the people).
Besides, is human life - rights, freedoms, quality of life, safety, etc. - any more important within a nation vs external to the nation? Is the USA model of government 'better' because people in the USA have more relative freedoms than those in Russia, even though the USA has an incredibly long and ugly list of removing democratically elected governments and replacing them with governments that are even maniacal and have been the causes of mass murders, including genocides?
How the USA listened to the petitions of Pepsi to oust the democratically elected and RESPONSIBLE government of Allende through a coup. His replacement? A dictator responsible for the imprisonment of over 200,000 'dissidents' (even suspected dissidents without any proof other than the accusation of someone else), and who systemically tortured and murdered over 30,000 people illegally and without a fair trial. Just ask a Chilean that lived through those times how wonderful the USA was.
I remember mentioning the bombings in Cambodia that were conducted illegally, and the active support of the Khmer Rouge by the USA (and China), who made any communist regime before or after that look downright pleasant. 3 million lives were extinguished there, and Cambodia is still suffering from the fall-out, as they trail behind practically every other nation in SE Asia, but before the bombings took place, they were one of the region's models.
The East Timor invasion. Sanctioned by the USA. Genocide of the Timorese people, language and culture. Portugal would try and have the UN at least investigate what was happening in East Timor (they claimed - and were proven right after 1999 - of genocide), but the USA and UK took turns vetoing any investigation. Vetoing an investigation??
The point remains this one - you can criticize Ovie for his public support of Putin, but you also better criticize any other athlete in their public support of any other presidential (or political) figure in the USA as well. I guess at the end of the day, you better really do a lot of research before publicly backing anyone or any organization. There has been a long list in sports (and still continues to be with celebrities as a whole) of backing such a terrible horse. That's the point that should be made. It is at least an equally bad idea to back any president for either country.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
No, it isn't absurd at all. In fact, it is absurd NOT to do so.
So democracy. Tell me, what is it? Let's look at the US' First Amendment to start.
What the heck happened during the Occupy movement?
This was not an isolated incident. Right across the USA, police brazenly and violently put a stop to many protests by force, even though in many cases the students offered no resistance other than to refuse to get up. They were pepper-sprayed, tear gassed, beaten.... whatever means necessary. So people have the right to protest... usually? How about the USA's use of torture? Again, it is an illegal act, but for some reason it is ok if the USA does it, occasionally.
If you really think that the USA has actual media freedom, think again. Who controls the media companies? Why is there such a rift between Fox News and other establishments? Is one really more 'honest' than the other? Look at who owns each media company, and it should lead to multinational company that has spent millions and millions on electing a certain side, and has spent millions and millions on lobbying whatever side wins to act in its' interests (even if they conflict with those of the people).
Besides, is human life - rights, freedoms, quality of life, safety, etc. - any more important within a nation vs external to the nation? Is the USA model of government 'better' because people in the USA have more relative freedoms than those in Russia, even though the USA has an incredibly long and ugly list of removing democratically elected governments and replacing them with governments that are even maniacal and have been the causes of mass murders, including genocides?
How the USA listened to the petitions of Pepsi to oust the democratically elected and RESPONSIBLE government of Allende through a coup. His replacement? A dictator responsible for the imprisonment of over 200,000 'dissidents' (even suspected dissidents without any proof other than the accusation of someone else), and who systemically tortured and murdered over 30,000 people illegally and without a fair trial. Just ask a Chilean that lived through those times how wonderful the USA was.
I remember mentioning the bombings in Cambodia that were conducted illegally, and the active support of the Khmer Rouge by the USA (and China), who made any communist regime before or after that look downright pleasant. 3 million lives were extinguished there, and Cambodia is still suffering from the fall-out, as they trail behind practically every other nation in SE Asia, but before the bombings took place, they were one of the region's models.
The East Timor invasion. Sanctioned by the USA. Genocide of the Timorese people, language and culture. Portugal would try and have the UN at least investigate what was happening in East Timor (they claimed - and were proven right after 1999 - of genocide), but the USA and UK took turns vetoing any investigation. Vetoing an investigation??
The point remains this one - you can criticize Ovie for his public support of Putin, but you also better criticize any other athlete in their public support of any other presidential (or political) figure in the USA as well. I guess at the end of the day, you better really do a lot of research before publicly backing anyone or any organization. There has been a long list in sports (and still continues to be with celebrities as a whole) of backing such a terrible horse. That's the point that should be made. It is at least an equally bad idea to back any president for either country.
Beautiful post. Sadly most people want to ignore whats happening in their own backyard because they dont want to believe it. Even if the evidence is in front of their eyes
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to flamesforcup For This Useful Post:
You can believe that the way the U.S. behaves internationally is pretty bad, while believing that Russia is worse. But again, this isn't about Russia or the USSR vs the USA. It's about Putin, and his tyrannical rule.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
