Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
ridski said:
nan said:This is where I think you and I differ. I don't trust any of these bastards as far as I can throw them, but for me, Occam's Razor falls on the side of Trump being a Russian stooge and Russia tipping the scales in the 2016 election. Because as much as I'd prefer not to trust the neo-cons, I trust them further than neo-Soviets, and it appears you believe the opposite.
ridski said:Trump is definitely an off the scales liar. We see evidence for that on a daily basis. I'm sure Putin lies, but it may not be any more than other people in his type of position.
Apologies, the two liars are Trump and Putin. Looking back on that I should have made that more clear in the context of this thread.
I don't trust any of them, but I think the neocons want all war all the time. Even if Putin is remotely close to that cartoon of him portrayed in Active Measures, I don't think he is looking to start a war and I don't believe he is hell bent on world domination. I think he has a good gig and wants to keep it.
How does the thought that neo-cons only want war all the time match up with the idea that they want to replace Putin with a guy who will let them plunder the country economically?
ridski said:
How does the thought that neo-cons only want war all the time match up with the idea that they want to replace Putin with a guy who will let them plunder the country economically?
They work in the best interests of our oligarchs such as the oil companies and defense contractors. Russia/Ukraine has lots of natural resources--that's the purpose of war. So they can replace the government with a puppet or go to war and then replace the government with a puppet.
jamie said:
Ridski - you have to remember Paul and nan's mantra:
THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA
The US is as vicious and evil as Putin and Russia. There's no denying it anymore!
Ridski -- you have to remember that @nohero / @South_Mountaineer find references to US war crimes to be "tiresome," especially those in Iraq that were promoted by CIA lies. So don't include Iraq, Vietnam, Chile, Iran, etc, or even our support for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Syria, in any comparison with Russia. Too "tiresome" to bring them up.
jamie said:
Sorry -this is nan's mantra. US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA
Can you try living in Russia for one year - then come back and see what your opinion is?
I don't think Nan is comparing living standards or civil liberties/civil rights. I think she's comparing accusations of Russian "meddling" with US "meddling" abroad. On that issue, there's no contest.
paulsurovell said:I don't think Nan is comparing living standards or civil liberties/civil rights.
It all depends on whether Pussy Riot are or aren’t what they appear to be.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:I don't think Nan is comparing living standards or civil liberties/civil rights. I think she's comparing accusations of Russian "meddling" with US "meddling" abroad. On that issue, there's no contest.
Sorry -this is nan's mantra. US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA
Can you try living in Russia for one year - then come back and see what your opinion is?
Yes, this is what I meant. Thanks.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:I don't think Nan is comparing living standards or civil liberties/civil rights. I think she's comparing accusations of Russian "meddling" with US "meddling" abroad. On that issue, there's no contest.
Sorry -this is nan's mantra. US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA - US IS WORSE THAN RUSSIA
Can you try living in Russia for one year - then come back and see what your opinion is?
Yes, this is what I meant. Thanks. Good video. Bill Browder, with his fake anti-Russia lobbying, fits into this narrative well. John McCain, who is mentioned in the video, was heavily involved with regimen change. That's why he was not a hero.
nan said:
ridski said:They work in the best interests of our oligarchs such as the oil companies and defense contractors. Russia/Ukraine has lots of natural resources--that's the purpose of war. So they can replace the government with a puppet or go to war and then replace the government with a puppet.
How does the thought that neo-cons only want war all the time match up with the idea that they want to replace Putin with a guy who will let them plunder the country economically?
So, from an anti-war stance it would be better to replace the government with a puppet without invading first, yes?
ridski said:
nan said:So, from an anti-war stance it would be better to replace the government with a puppet without invading first, yes?
ridski said:They work in the best interests of our oligarchs such as the oil companies and defense contractors. Russia/Ukraine has lots of natural resources--that's the purpose of war. So they can replace the government with a puppet or go to war and then replace the government with a puppet.
How does the thought that neo-cons only want war all the time match up with the idea that they want to replace Putin with a guy who will let them plunder the country economically?
In this interview, John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," describes how wars of regime change are the last in a sequence of steps used by the US to dominate a country. Here's the beginning:
https://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.
JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring — to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It’s been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It’s only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.
It would be great if you made your point using your own words for once, paulsurovell.
nan said:
Nan - I don't have time to go through these right now - but can you let me know which part and minute Putin discusses LGBT rights - thanks.
Bill Browder did an AMA on Reddit an hour ago and sadly I was training someone and missed it.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:Ridski -- you have to remember that @nohero / @South_Mountaineer find references to US war crimes to be "tiresome," especially those in Iraq that were promoted by CIA lies. So don't include Iraq, Vietnam, Chile, Iran, etc, or even our support for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Syria, in any comparison with Russia. Too "tiresome" to bring them up.
Ridski - you have to remember Paul and nan's mantra:
THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA - THE US IS AS BAD AS RUSSIA
The US is as vicious and evil as Putin and Russia. There's no denying it anymore!
Speaking for myself, I have never called the discussion of war crimes “tiresome”. That is a lie. (And why the eff is that non sequitur any kind of a legitimate response to what Mr. J. Ross wrote? It's a rhetorical question, please don't toss in some bull caca "rationale", thanks in advance).
I have said that it’s “tiresome” to keep attacking the investigation of Trump and Russia by bringing up the distortion of intelligence by the Bush Administration to promote the Iraq invasion. As I wrote back in January:
The continued resort to pointing at what some officials did to push the Iraq War is tiresome. It's not an all-purpose reason or response to every question. Mueller wasn't even a foreign intelligence official, so whatever he said in the 24 seconds of that clip, as an intro to his actual point, doesn't prove your case. If your answer depends on a snippet out-of-context, your answer is lousy.
As I also wrote back in January, in response to your accusation "You called invoking the lies that caused the invasion of Iraq 'tiresome.' That insults the memories of those who died and who continue to suffer" (by the way, that quote from you demonstrates how false your latest accusation is):
Oh my, you "doubled down" and went "all in" on that lie. You deliberately left out a significant part of what I've written. I "called invoking the lies that caused the invasion of Iraq 'tiresome' " when they are invoked to defend Trump. That extra bit matters. You're illustrating my point comparing what you're doing to the unconscionable things I listed.
You know what else is tiresome? When you are untruthful about what someone else wrote, and then criticize that person based on your dishonest summary. As I had to point out to you only a few days ago:
Don't keep insulting other posters by "reinterpreting" what they write, and then accusing them of writing things they didn't write. That's tiresome.
I will conclude this response with the same words I used a month ago.
This has to stop, because this argument technique is getting tiresome:
1. Claim someone made an argument that the person didn't actually make.
2. Use your verbal skills to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic to take apart the argument that nobody actually made.
3. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
(Bonus points for anyone who gets the movie quote reference in the above comment.)
To sum up: It's not a "discussion" if you keep making things up just to chase people away, to leave your statements unchallenged.
nohero said:
Speaking for myself, I have never called the discussion of war crimes “tiresome”. That is a lie. (And why the eff is that non sequitur any kind of a legitimate response to what Mr. J. Ross wrote? It's a rhetorical question, please don't toss in some bull caca "rationale", thanks in advance).
I have said that it’s “tiresome” to keep attacking the investigation of Trump and Russia by bringing up the distortion of intelligence by the Bush Administration to promote the Iraq invasion. As I wrote back in January:
The continued resort to pointing at what some officials did to push the Iraq War is tiresome. It's not an all-purpose reason or response to every question. Mueller wasn't even a foreign intelligence official, so whatever he said in the 24 seconds of that clip, as an intro to his actual point, doesn't prove your case. If your answer depends on a snippet out-of-context, your answer is lousy.
Pushing an unprovoked, or unilateral war, is a war of aggression and as such is not only a war crime, but the Supreme War Crime. From the Nuremburg Tribunal:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/09-30-46.asp
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.So in fact, by saying that "continued resort to pointing at what some officials did to push the Iraq War is tiresome" you are saying that discussion of war crimes is "tiresome."
ridski said:
Bill Browder did an AMA on Reddit an hour ago and sadly I was training someone and missed it.
I don't know how Reddit works. Is that something we can get later?
ridski said:
nan said:So, from an anti-war stance it would be better to replace the government with a puppet without invading first, yes?
ridski said:They work in the best interests of our oligarchs such as the oil companies and defense contractors. Russia/Ukraine has lots of natural resources--that's the purpose of war. So they can replace the government with a puppet or go to war and then replace the government with a puppet.
How does the thought that neo-cons only want war all the time match up with the idea that they want to replace Putin with a guy who will let them plunder the country economically?
An anti-war stance says leave them alone and use the money here at home for social programs that we desperately need.
nan said:
ridski said:An anti-war stance says leave them alone and use the money here at home for social programs that we desperately need.
nan said:So, from an anti-war stance it would be better to replace the government with a puppet without invading first, yes?
ridski said:They work in the best interests of our oligarchs such as the oil companies and defense contractors. Russia/Ukraine has lots of natural resources--that's the purpose of war. So they can replace the government with a puppet or go to war and then replace the government with a puppet.
How does the thought that neo-cons only want war all the time match up with the idea that they want to replace Putin with a guy who will let them plunder the country economically?
Problem is we're not going to get them because Russia, not on an anti-war stance and working in the best interests of its oligarchs, has replaced our government with a puppet.
ridski said:
It would be great if you made your point using your own words for once, paulsurovell.
If it makes you happy, I'll add this to my quote from John Perkins:
I'm not aware of anti-war advocates who support imposition of puppet governments, I certainly don't. The following discussion by former economic hit-man John Perkins shows where imposition of puppet governments falls in the spectrum of foreign domination and control.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Pushing an unprovoked, or unilateral war, is a war of aggression and as such is not only a war crime, but the Supreme War Crime. From the Nuremburg Tribunal:
Speaking for myself, I have never called the discussion of war crimes “tiresome”. That is a lie. (And why the eff is that non sequitur any kind of a legitimate response to what Mr. J. Ross wrote? It's a rhetorical question, please don't toss in some bull caca "rationale", thanks in advance).
I have said that it’s “tiresome” to keep attacking the investigation of Trump and Russia by bringing up the distortion of intelligence by the Bush Administration to promote the Iraq invasion. As I wrote back in January:
The continued resort to pointing at what some officials did to push the Iraq War is tiresome. It's not an all-purpose reason or response to every question. Mueller wasn't even a foreign intelligence official, so whatever he said in the 24 seconds of that clip, as an intro to his actual point, doesn't prove your case. If your answer depends on a snippet out-of-context, your answer is lousy.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/09-30-46.as
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.So in fact, by saying that "continued resort to pointing at what some officials did to push the Iraq War is tiresome" you are saying that discussion of war crimes is "tiresome."
More of the same, so no need to repeat my long post.
Speaking of war crimes, when do you think Putin will be charged with war crimes for his war of aggression in Ukraine? Or does that not count?
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:If it makes you happy, I'll add this to my quote from John Perkins:
It would be great if you made your point using your own words for once, paulsurovell.
I'm not aware of anti-war advocates who support imposition of puppet governments, I certainly don't. The following discussion by former economic hit-man John Perkins shows where imposition of puppet governments falls in the spectrum of foreign domination and control.
Well, congratulations. We got one, whether you support it or not.
ridski said:
nProblem is we're not going to get them because Russia, not on an anti-war stance and working in the best interests of its oligarchs, has replaced our government with a puppet.
An anti-war stance says leave them alone and use the money here at home for social programs that we desperately need.
I don't see the evidence for that. First, Russia did not elect Trump--that was the DNC, who covers it up with Russia. Second, Trump, for all his adoring glances at VP, does not do positive things for Russia. Trump has left the sanctions in place. Trump sold weapons to people they don't like. Trump bombed Syria and may be getting ready to do it again. This is not puppet behavior. He acts more like Israel's puppet, but for some reason, people don't seem to care about that.
nohero said:
More of the same, so no need to repeat my long post.
Speaking of war crimes, when do you think Putin will be charged with war crimes for his war of aggression in Ukraine? Or does that not count?
Do you think the US will be charged with war crimes for their war of aggression in Ukraine? Cause that's what really happened. Watch the movie, Ukraine on Fire and learn why John McCain is not a hero as the MSM portrays him.
nan said:
ridski said:I don't see the evidence for that. First, Russia did not elect Trump--that was the DNC, who covers it up with Russia. Second, Trump, for all his adoring glances at VP, does not do positive things for Russia. Trump has left the sanctions in place. Trump sold weapons to people they don't like. Trump bombed Syria and may be getting ready to do it again. This is not puppet behavior. He acts more like Israel's puppet, but for some reason, people don't seem to care about that.
nProblem is we're not going to get them because Russia, not on an anti-war stance and working in the best interests of its oligarchs, has replaced our government with a puppet.
An anti-war stance says leave them alone and use the money here at home for social programs that we desperately need.
The DNC did not elect Trump. The RNC did not elect Trump. Heck, Trump wasn’t even planning to win. The scale was tipped in his favor.
“Magnitsky” sanctions are still in place, but new attempts at sanctions have been fought or scuttled by the Trump Regime. The CAATSA sanctions were pretty much ignored or made near-impossible to implement, for example.
All we really know about the weapons sold to Ukraine are that they received 37 Javelin launchers and 210 missiles to go with them. I really hope they’re nicely spread out because there are fewer launchers than people left arguing in Soapbox: All Politics. It’s like the bare minimum for an arms deal.
There have been many stories about Trump tipping off the Kremlin about Syrian airstrikes, including the first cruise missile strike on the Syrian airfield. I honestly don’t think he cares much about foreign policy, or running anything. Russia has two goals in Syria, one that they keep their Mediterranean naval base (the only one they have in that sea) and the other is to maintain enough chaos in the Middle East that Eastern Euro and South Asia countries are forced to buy Russian oil. Oddly, an aggressive Israel (not an oil-producing country) using the US to fight/support Iranian interests in Syria/Yemen only helps the Russian oil cause.
ridski said:
nan said:The DNC did not elect Trump. The RNC did not elect Trump. Heck, Trump wasn’t even planning to win. The scale was tipped in his favor.
ridski said:I don't see the evidence for that. First, Russia did not elect Trump--that was the DNC, who covers it up with Russia. Second, Trump, for all his adoring glances at VP, does not do positive things for Russia. Trump has left the sanctions in place. Trump sold weapons to people they don't like. Trump bombed Syria and may be getting ready to do it again. This is not puppet behavior. He acts more like Israel's puppet, but for some reason, people don't seem to care about that.
nProblem is we're not going to get them because Russia, not on an anti-war stance and working in the best interests of its oligarchs, has replaced our government with a puppet.
An anti-war stance says leave them alone and use the money here at home for social programs that we desperately need.
“Magnitsky” sanctions are still in place, but new attempts at sanctions have been fought or scuttled by the Trump Regime. The CAATSA sanctions were pretty much ignored or made near-impossible to implement, for example.
All we really know about the weapons sold to Ukraine are that they received 37 Javelin launchers and 210 missiles to go with them. I really hope they’re nicely spread out because there are fewer launchers than people left arguing in Soapbox: All Politics. It’s like the bare minimum for an arms deal.
There have been many stories about Trump tipping off the Kremlin about Syrian airstrikes, including the first cruise missile strike on the Syrian airfield. I honestly don’t think he cares much about foreign policy, or running anything. Russia has two goals in Syria, one that they keep their Mediterranean naval base (the only one they have in that sea) and the other is to maintain enough chaos in the Middle East that Eastern Euro and South Asia countries are forced to buy Russian oil. Oddly, an aggressive Israel (not an oil-producing country) using the US to fight/support Iranian interests in Syria/Yemen only helps the Russian oil cause.
Yeah, we don't agree on this. Russia is just a country that wants to thrive on it's own with a tiny military budget compared to ours. They are not out for world domination. That's the US. Our election system is a total mess and that's without anything to do with Russia. We have so many problems that have nothing to do with Russia. Our president has so many problems not related to Russia. We should not be fighting with Russia--we should be friends with them and they have nuclear weapons so we should not be taunting them on their borders with missile sites.
I don't support the action in Syria and I don't think we should be there and we need to stop with our horrible regime changes that only make for more instability and more refugees and do not make us safer. We are the reason things are so screwed up in the mideast. The part about these wars being about oil is true, although once again, it's not Russia that is the problem. When you look at the big picture, the problem is that the US government can't leave anyone or any country alone and all of our money is going to support these miserable wars while we live in squalor.
It's sick and the MSM supports the whole thing and has everyone thinking that Putin, with his crummy office filled with push button phones (see the Stone interviews) is seeping into our non-existent democracy and hiding under our beds. So nuts.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:Same mentality
Move to Russia. Let us know how it is.
Hi Ho Silver!
nan said:
nohero said:Do you think the US will be charged with war crimes for their war of aggression in Ukraine? Cause that's what really happened. Watch the movie, Ukraine on Fire and learn why John McCain is not a hero as the MSM portrays him.
More of the same, so no need to repeat my long post.
Speaking of war crimes, when do you think Putin will be charged with war crimes for his war of aggression in Ukraine? Or does that not count?
No charges against U.S. over Ukraine, no matter how many times Oliver Stone pushes the deposed Russia-allied President's version of how the Ukrainians tossed him out. How about Putin sending in actual troops, shooting down an actual airliner, and actually occupying actual territory - is he still short of the "war crimes" line?
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
May 11, 2024 at 5:03pm
-
May 11, 2024 at 9:52am
-
Math Tutoring with Certified Teacher
May 7, 2024 at 7:16pm
Help Wanted
-
Driving Legal Nanny is needed in Paramus, NJ
May 10, 2024 at 12:22pm
-
FHF604 PT Nanny for 2 (Mid-June Start)
May 9, 2024 at 7:42pm
-
HF801 PT Nanny for 1 Infant (ASAP)
May 9, 2024 at 1:18pm
-
Very Rewarding Position as a Dog Walker/Pet Sitter
May 8, 2024 at 11:37am
-
SF5002 PT or FT Nanny/FA for 3 (Aug/Sept Start)
May 8, 2024 at 10:59am
-
CF583 PT Nanny for 2 (July Start)
May 7, 2024 at 2:07pm
-
May 7, 2024 at 7:32am
Lessons/Instruction
Rentals
Advertisement
This is where I think you and I differ. I don't trust any of these bastards as far as I can throw them, but for me, Occam's Razor falls on the side of Trump being a Russian stooge and Russia tipping the scales in the 2016 election. Because as much as I'd prefer not to trust the neo-cons, I trust them further than neo-Soviets, and it appears you believe the opposite.