Blurring the Lines Between the "Good Guys" and "The Evildoers"

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: greencmp

From the link in the OP,

But in financial terms, the Stars and Stripes comes out on top — the peninsula is struggling after the United States, along with the EU and Ukraine, imposed sanctions against Crimea and businesses that work there.

Now, how hard is that to understand?

Take the blinkers off there...

I see, so it is our fault because of sanctions?

But, wouldn't that mean that we have some effective non-violent political mechanism with which to express our dissapproval?

I still don't see how we are responsible for the unravelling state of Crimean infrastructure if that is even happening.

I am certainly not trying to poke anybody with sticks here, I just honestly don't see a credible justification for the righteous indignation.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

burdman30ott6,

You are a metal head right? You KNOW the GOOD guys wear black!

I think the difficulty here is the sheer THICKNESS of the propaganda. The people in the region, the people here in the west, the people of Russia, and everyone who has a vested interest in the success or failure of the region itself, are both producing, and being affected by propaganda. The only truth here is that no group with a vested interest in the region can trust that the western position on this situation is any more valid than the Russian position on it.

The USA has a history of inserting economic leverage into a region, in order to destabilise its leadership, and replace it with a leadership that has a more favourable attitude toward the US and its interests, in return for certain... allowances being made toward American businesses for example. In the case of the Ukraine, its proximity to the base of Russias Black Sea Fleet makes it a big target. Now, one could argue, quite reasonably I might add, that making international moves using economic leverage, and agent provocateurs to change governments without the uninfluenced, free choice of the people is immoral. But making such a move against the region in spite of the obvious result (that of Russias inevitable reaction to an incursion of that sort so close to a vital strategic asset), is not only immoral, but STUPID!

I think the main question is, how much longer can people pretend surprise at this stupidity, bearing in mind the wave, after muddy wave of it that we have seen of it over the last few decades.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Unlike WWI and WWII, WWIII will almost certainly feature a conflict where the division of good vs evil will depend solely on propaganda and perception rather than anything remotely tangible. Issues like this: www.nbcnews.com... make that a near certainty.

Celebrations took place in Crimea on Monday to celebrate the one-year anniversary of a disputed referendum to join Russia after Moscow's military entered the Ukrainian peninsula. But the festivities in the peninsula's capital of Simferopol did little to hide the isolation that has resulted from the controversial annexation and international sanctions which followed.

McDonald's was not the only international company to withdraw from Crimea: many others followed, including PayPal, Amazon, and even Russian banks.

Once a thriving resort zone, Crimea now stands separated from the rest of the world: international cell phones do not work, and neither do credit cards.

Visa and MasterCard have both ceased operations in Crimea, essentially crippling the region's financial system: Paying by card is no longer possible, and businesses cannot wire or receive payments.

The sole land link to the Ukrainian mainland was closed off by Kiev, food prices have skyrocketed, tourist flows are down and 3G cellphone service is off. The peninsula is even lacking in fresh water and electricity, more than 80 percent of which came from Ukraine.

the peninsula is struggling after the United States, along with the EU and Ukraine, imposed sanctions against Crimea and businesses that work there.

Interesting that when a state-declared enemy of the US, EU, or their allies besieges an area it is a "HUMANITARIAN CRISIS" and the nation responsible is "VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW", but when the US, EU, or their allies does exactly the same thing it is called "Sanctions" and presented as being an example of trying to get the target nation to change their course towards the light side.

This is exactly why the idea that the west represents some sort of good anymore is so easily rejectable. The US over the past couple of decades has become a Dr, Jeckle and Mr. Hyde bipolar paragon of confusing and conflicting messages. Syria, for instance, is in a heated battle against known terrorist organizations... organizations which framed Assad for the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Ghouta... 1,700 casualties, and the US did everything they could think of to use those deaths as an excuse to SIDE WITH TERRORISTS and force an armed regime change on Syria. Based on that level of reaction, you'd think the USA would have leapt into action over a million genocide deaths in Rwanda and the 5 million deaths in the Congo civil wars! *crickets chirping* Huh? What? Wait, wait, wait... they did nothing? Really? Not a damn thing? Um, well, this is awkward.

Bashir Assad is accused of causing the deaths of 1,700 and America is ready to rush in all guns blazing without any evidence other than an accusation, buuuuut 3,500 times that many civilians are laying dead in central Africa and the same officials sit around with their thumbs up their ass? o_O

So back to Crimea. We have the majority of the Crimean population wanting to remain under Russia's care, we have a Russian nation trying desperately to get aid, food, and infrastructure to these suffering people, and we have an American government supporting a derelict Ukrainian government in blocking that aid and threatening military action against the country trying to get the aid to the people who need it (along with a US government spearheading other international sanctions which are causing the pain of those people...)

Who says bad guys always wear black?

The only thing I disagree in the OP is making divisions between the world wars. Propaganda was always a part, how many it fooled I have no idea, and there were always ways and means of the time to ensure that the propaganda was re-enforced with a real hardship. For sure Hitler was a madman who formented his own propaganda, that only made it easier for the propagandists who opposed him in the long run...but to make all of it true, millions, both on his part, and on the true lovers of true freedom had to die.
In that way nothing has changed so much, and matter of fact, Putin said much the same today quite simply, "It's boring when there is no gossip"
As for true freedom for the great unwashed??

Good thread.

You said that which needs saying and here's hoping more open their eyes to reality.

a reply to: smurfy

I think the primary difference, in my mind at least, between the first two World Wars and what is to come, is that the USA kept to themselves leading into both of those wars. There's a definite degree of honor involved in staying out of a brawl until someone decides to sucker punch you, which is what effectively happened to draw America into both wars. I can't honestly say the US has retained much of that honor. When Eisenhower left office, he warned vehemently against the very beast he had conquered when he entered the office of president: The Military Industrial Complex. I'm in no way convinced any military action America has taken since (with the exception of Afghanistan, depending on your view of 9/11 and who was responsible... a discussion not for this thread) has been just or in the best interest of the USA. That endless warfare has cost America the pedestal they rightfully earned at the end of the Second World War. Since then, the degree of aggression America has shown to the world has increased in a steep line which indicates the complete death of the US' traditional position of not getting involved in matters that do not concern the people of America.

Therein lies the true evil... much like the old line "It is better to remain silent and be presumed a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt>" I believe there is a similar concept "Better to remain out of a fight that is none of your business and be presumed an instigator, than to start the fight and remove all doubt." It is conceptually impossible to be a bully that constantly throws the first punch in every fight and line up on the side of justice and propriety.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It is conceptually impossible to be a bully that constantly throws the first punch in every fight and line up on the side of justice and propriety.

This ^ ! One thousand and one times! Bloody well said sir!

Simple wisdom like this seems absent from the halls of power at the moment, and that is galling in and of itself. But to see the very opposite applied as policy is only rendered less than shocking by the frequency and regularity with which it occurs.

when the nukes go off, much harder religious rhetoric will be adopted by the survivors. The image of the beast of revelation and the harlot riding it and destroyed by it, will immediately be applied to the belligerents, no matter who they are or how true biblical it is. May be a rescue attempt by secret flying saucers to be presented as rapture. With the horrendous nuclear nightmare it will mean little to demonize the other side. The big question however is who will rescue the populations on all sides, who are not guilty of the conflict. Will it be pre-arranged governmental actions, or will it be aliens.

Many fanatics from all kind of spectrum preemptively exclude themselves of such possibility, due to ill understood religious feelings, political fears (fema) or belief they could survive in remote area by themselves. On top of that come the wide spread erroneous teachings of 4th dimensional transfer of selected souls. In simple words they will be left to die on the surface.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

sad days we live in. I live in the US, New York to be exact. the whole Russia/Ukraine thing is a few bad incidents away from WWIII and for what? a pipe line? a warm water port? perceived threats from basically non functional ABM system?

I'm being serious i don't understand anymore. I get it that Crimea was one of Russia's major naval bases and allot of gas flows from Russia but is it worth it just on a purely financial basis?

iv seen videos of us and British 'mercenaries' leading pro Ukrainian forces, and i don't doubt that the Russian special forces are still there.

And as far as i know the shooters that were shooting the civilians and police were western backed shooters. and then they civilian air liner that was clearly shot out of the sky.

i say let Russia have Crimea and let the people that live there not worry about a random artillery shell landing in there bed room.

Russia and the US are fighting over nothing as far as i can see, other then money and a few military installations.


Africa will have its turn you can be sure of that, with China buying up all the land/resources we will need to get our hand on all that good stuff.

your kidding your self if you think anyone cares about african people killing them selfs off.

a reply to: 2012newstart

It don't matter, we are not surprised by anything here.

But I can guarantee that the leaders of this world, the REAL ONES, have no idea what is to become of THEM.

It's the blured lines that will keep me out of fighting ww3.

Everyone else can go off to war and die so rich men can prosper.

I refuse to take part and be a wheel in the cog.

# war

a reply to: crazyewok

The only major flaw in that plan depends entirely on the "Where?" question in regards to WWIII's theater. It's extremely easy (and arguably prudent) to remain entirely out of the fight if the war is raging on a different continent or even a different country. If you were a European in WWII, for example, it was fight or die. As integrated as Globalism has become, it's tough to imagine the next big war won't be very close to a global war... at the very least a Northern Hemisphere war.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: crazyewok

The only major flaw in that plan depends entirely on the "Where?" question in regards to WWIII's theater. It's extremely easy (and arguably prudent) to remain entirely out of the fight if the war is raging on a different continent or even a different country. If you were a European in WWII, for example, it was fight or die. As integrated as Globalism has become, it's tough to imagine the next big war won't be very close to a global war... at the very least a Northern Hemisphere war.

If the UK came under direct threat of invasion I would fight.

But no one except the U.S. has the Capability to invade the UK.

The same with the USA, no one is going to be landing troops on the USA main land.

Any war will likely be fought in the ME, eastern Europe or in the pacific.

If nukes fly? Well we are all screwed anyway no point in fighting.

originally posted by: crazyewok
But no one except the U.S. has the Capability to invade the UK.

The same with the USA, no one is going to be landing troops on the USA main land.

Some might argue both countries are already being invaded with the direct intention of activating sleeper cells from within each country when called upon. I'm not really prepared to refute that argument with anything other than hopefulness and crossed fingers.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: crazyewok
But no one except the U.S. has the Capability to invade the UK.

The same with the USA, no one is going to be landing troops on the USA main land.

Some might argue both countries are already being invaded with the direct intention of activating sleeper cells from within each country when called upon. I'm not really prepared to refute that argument with anything other than hopefulness and crossed fingers.

Well that's a whole different topic

One I do t think can be solved by drafts and military invasions.

If they exist and activate It will likely be a case of hunker down and take the damage as there will be little we can do.

The only counter would be a bigger police state, but do we want that?
For the sake of our real freedoms it may be better to take the hit and move on
I guess the only other thing is halt all travel to and from the Middle east?

At the the end of the day they can't hold land and can only destroy us if we let them.

The Ukraine is part of Putin's breadbasket

a reply to: burdman30ott6
Absolutely true, do as I say, not as I do. The hypocrisy is so tiresome and ludicrous, if a country invaded another and killed 500,000 civilians, the US would be furious.

It is rather sickening how our propaganda tries to paint everything so black and white (and every other country's media too!). The west sending NATO mercenaries in to shoot both protestors and Berkuta, to inflame tensions. The leaked conversations of US diplomats deciding the next Ukrainian president. Monsanto wanting to decimate all of Ukraine's food. Joe Biden's son on the board of a gas company in you guessed it, Crimea!

Afghanistan was a blurred line... there certainly was some good done there, but solely for selfish reasons and without the will of the people. Afghanis have fought off dozens of invasion attempts by colonisers. I think the bottom line really is, almost all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, yet Arabia doesnt get annihilated?

One generation ago people were far more realist about the country they live in. They did not need any internet to know that America went to town on Latin America undoing democracies that were in the best interest of the people whom elected them rather than the cronies in America and Europe.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Unlike WWI and WWII, WWIII will almost certainly feature a conflict where the division of good vs evil will depend solely on propaganda and perception rather than anything remotely tangible.

Who says bad guys always wear black?

Not all historians agree that even WW1 and WW2 was based on anything tangible. As the saying goes, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

I think it's pretty scary that the western hollywood media is pushing for war against anyone that won't 'submit' to the western powers. I don't understand why so many people on this forum seem to be frothing at the mouth to attack Russia. Don't you people have kids? I get accused of defending Russia, when in reality, I want my family to be safe here in the U.S.

It's like some people think this is some video game, or you're gonna be able to sit on your barca lounger watching other innocent people die and cheer for that. You all REALLY want to push a war with a Russia-China-Iran-N.Korea alliance?? Have you all lost your minds?!

I really don't like this mono-culture, one world system. I want to do a lot of traveling, and I want to experience every different culture and THEIR traditions, language, food, etc... EVEN if it means ... OMG... putting a scarf over my hair in some countries.

I remember hearing quite a few years ago that there were only 5 countries left that were not in the rothchild banking system or were attempting to use gold for transactions. I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure it was Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and N. Korea. Since that time Russia and China have been making noise along this line.

It's like what Major General Smedley Butler said... War is a Racket! They all trace back to $$$$$ and the ones making it and gaining power with every country they 'westernize'. And imo all goes back to 'Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it's laws'.

If people would break out of that stupid 'team' mentality, quit being so paranoid about other countries supposedly hating our 'freedoms', and let countries have whatever kind of damn government they want to have.

Democracy where 1 person can bribe, blackmail or threaten 50 others to steal the money of the other 49.

Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, JFK executive order 111110
and God-Damn-You Woodrow Wilson 1913

ETA: "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." ~ Henry Ford

And that quote is the problem imo with most of the western power's citizenry. Need to add that to my sig.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It goes to show that war is no longer fought in the trenches-It is now being fought in the boardrooms and in cyberspace and the web is mightier than the sword.

Wars have never been fought for the common good; if that was the case then nations like Sudan, Mali and Somalia would be at the top of the list but they aren't.