McCain Was Right About Putin

[12th Doctor]

The best McCain can do is start another Cold War with Russia. Seriously, I am no Putin fan, but there were factors in Russia in the past 20 years that explain why he is supported. We won in the 1980's because we had the moral high ground as well as military, and that is where we need to stay; not get into a Cold War with Russia while still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To say we had a high moral ground is rewriting history. We may have been better, but both the USSR and USA were devils in the cold war. We won because we were in every way the more powerful country.

We had it over the Russians in the '80s. We are in every way more powerful than Cuba; Libya; and North Korea, but those regimes are still around. No, there was something in the basic culture of the European people at that time that prevented men like Honecker and Ceaucescu and the 1991 coup leaders from achieving their ends. There was a real appeal of freedom, capitalism, and democracy, and Western values among the masses; and to a great extent there still is. But the reason why the Putin-Medvedev regime has had so much success in Russia is that those Western values have lost a great deal of its glitter; both because of what happened in Russia in the last two decades and what has happened to the West in the last decade.

No, I would say that its what has happened in Russia, mainly.  Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic states have had no trouble moving ahead.  The countries that have had a rough time were the ones directly affected by Russian corruption, like Ukraine, Belarus, the Central Asian states and, of course, Russia herself.

[12th Doctor]

The best McCain can do is start another Cold War with Russia. Seriously, I am no Putin fan, but there were factors in Russia in the past 20 years that explain why he is supported. We won in the 1980's because we had the moral high ground as well as military, and that is where we need to stay; not get into a Cold War with Russia while still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To say we had a high moral ground is rewriting history. We may have been better, but both the USSR and USA were devils in the cold war. We won because we were in every way the more powerful country.

errrr.  How did we not have the moral high ground during the Cold War?  Do you have any idea how many people the Commies killed?  Neither do we because they killed so farking many and did so as secretly as possible.  How many people did we shoot in the back trying to flee the west?  What was our version of the Iron Curtain called?  Somebody is rewriting history here and it's you.  Yeah I know we did some things that were wrong, but if you can't see the moral difference between the West and Soviets during the Cold War then you're blind and probably support the Palestinians.

And did you ever wonder WHY we were more powerfull?  That wasn't an accident of nature.  Free markets are better than state controlled markets.  That's why we were more powerfull, we had the free market on our side.  It's amazing how little people know about the Cold War and how/why it ended.

Indeed, some of the thing the West did weren't pretty, but the absolutely pale in comparison to the destruction the communists reaped on the world.  We are talking in the millions.  And the over-all might of the Soviet military was better than the United States, even if ours was more efficient.  Not to mention that the Soviet nuclear arsenal was, by 1987, over twice as large as that of the US.

[12th Doctor]

The best McCain can do is start another Cold War with Russia. Seriously, I am no Putin fan, but there were factors in Russia in the past 20 years that explain why he is supported. We won in the 1980's because we had the moral high ground as well as military, and that is where we need to stay; not get into a Cold War with Russia while still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To say we had a high moral ground is rewriting history. We may have been better, but both the USSR and USA were devils in the cold war. We won because we were in every way the more powerful country.

We had it over the Russians in the '80s. We are in every way more powerful than Cuba; Libya; and North Korea, but those regimes are still around. No, there was something in the basic culture of the European people at that time that prevented men like Honecker and Ceaucescu and the 1991 coup leaders from achieving their ends. There was a real appeal of freedom, capitalism, and democracy, and Western values among the masses; and to a great extent there still is. But the reason why the Putin-Medvedev regime has had so much success in Russia is that those Western values have lost a great deal of its glitter; both because of what happened in Russia in the last two decades and what has happened to the West in the last decade.

No, I would say that its what has happened in Russia, mainly.  Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic states have had no trouble moving ahead.  The countries that have had a rough time were the ones directly affected by Russian corruption, like Ukraine, Belarus, the Central Asian states and, of course, Russia herself.

Russia was more affected because Russia was poorer and more distant from the center of Europe, and suffered worse politically and economically. 2000 was the turning point for Russia and 2001 showed what the US response would be; withdrawing from the ABM treaty unilaterally, while turning an essentially blind eye to human rights abuses. The message to Putin was that treaties don't pay, but nationalism does.

Of course, because Putin was an angel before the US did such things.  And man, we were mean to him...

"I looked into his eyes and saw his soul"

[12th Doctor]

The best McCain can do is start another Cold War with Russia. Seriously, I am no Putin fan, but there were factors in Russia in the past 20 years that explain why he is supported. We won in the 1980's because we had the moral high ground as well as military, and that is where we need to stay; not get into a Cold War with Russia while still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To say we had a high moral ground is rewriting history. We may have been better, but both the USSR and USA were devils in the cold war. We won because we were in every way the more powerful country.

We had it over the Russians in the '80s. We are in every way more powerful than Cuba; Libya; and North Korea, but those regimes are still around. No, there was something in the basic culture of the European people at that time that prevented men like Honecker and Ceaucescu and the 1991 coup leaders from achieving their ends. There was a real appeal of freedom, capitalism, and democracy, and Western values among the masses; and to a great extent there still is. But the reason why the Putin-Medvedev regime has had so much success in Russia is that those Western values have lost a great deal of its glitter; both because of what happened in Russia in the last two decades and what has happened to the West in the last decade.

No, I would say that its what has happened in Russia, mainly.  Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic states have had no trouble moving ahead.  The countries that have had a rough time were the ones directly affected by Russian corruption, like Ukraine, Belarus, the Central Asian states and, of course, Russia herself.

Russia was more affected because Russia was poorer and more distant from the center of Europe, and suffered worse politically and economically. 2000 was the turning point for Russia and 2001 showed what the US response would be; withdrawing from the ABM treaty unilaterally, while turning an essentially blind eye to human rights abuses. The message to Putin was that treaties don't pay, but nationalism does.

Of course, because Putin was an angel before the US did such things.  And man, we were mean to him...

"I looked into his eyes and saw his soul"

You're oversimplifying things. The US has limited influence over such things, but where we do have influence we can either use it wisely or unwisely...

It wasn't our job to pull Russia out of the gutter.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's nice. I think the topic was about McCain though. Keep grasping, strawman.

Phil, their big chance in this election is to convince people the McCain is Bush.  If they do that then they don't worry about the inadequacies of their own candidate.  It doesn't matter how insincere their effort is.  They do because they must.

[12th Doctor]

The best McCain can do is start another Cold War with Russia. Seriously, I am no Putin fan, but there were factors in Russia in the past 20 years that explain why he is supported. We won in the 1980's because we had the moral high ground as well as military, and that is where we need to stay; not get into a Cold War with Russia while still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To say we had a high moral ground is rewriting history. We may have been better, but both the USSR and USA were devils in the cold war. We won because we were in every way the more powerful country.

We had it over the Russians in the '80s. We are in every way more powerful than Cuba; Libya; and North Korea, but those regimes are still around. No, there was something in the basic culture of the European people at that time that prevented men like Honecker and Ceaucescu and the 1991 coup leaders from achieving their ends. There was a real appeal of freedom, capitalism, and democracy, and Western values among the masses; and to a great extent there still is. But the reason why the Putin-Medvedev regime has had so much success in Russia is that those Western values have lost a great deal of its glitter; both because of what happened in Russia in the last two decades and what has happened to the West in the last decade.

No, I would say that its what has happened in Russia, mainly.  Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic states have had no trouble moving ahead.  The countries that have had a rough time were the ones directly affected by Russian corruption, like Ukraine, Belarus, the Central Asian states and, of course, Russia herself.

Russia was more affected because Russia was poorer and more distant from the center of Europe, and suffered worse politically and economically. 2000 was the turning point for Russia and 2001 showed what the US response would be; withdrawing from the ABM treaty unilaterally, while turning an essentially blind eye to human rights abuses. The message to Putin was that treaties don't pay, but nationalism does.

Of course, because Putin was an angel before the US did such things.  And man, we were mean to him...

"I looked into his eyes and saw his soul"

You're oversimplifying things. The US has limited influence over such things, but where we do have influence we can either use it wisely or unwisely...

It wasn't our job to pull Russia out of the gutter.

No, but we live in the same world as a Russia that has pulled itself out of the gutter by following Putin, hence his government's popularity and grip on the country.

Ummm... okay.  Did this debate have a point, because I know I didn't start off by arguing against you on that bit of obviousness.

[12th Doctor]

The best McCain can do is start another Cold War with Russia. Seriously, I am no Putin fan, but there were factors in Russia in the past 20 years that explain why he is supported. We won in the 1980's because we had the moral high ground as well as military, and that is where we need to stay; not get into a Cold War with Russia while still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To say we had a high moral ground is rewriting history. We may have been better, but both the USSR and USA were devils in the cold war. We won because we were in every way the more powerful country.

We had it over the Russians in the '80s. We are in every way more powerful than Cuba; Libya; and North Korea, but those regimes are still around. No, there was something in the basic culture of the European people at that time that prevented men like Honecker and Ceaucescu and the 1991 coup leaders from achieving their ends. There was a real appeal of freedom, capitalism, and democracy, and Western values among the masses; and to a great extent there still is. But the reason why the Putin-Medvedev regime has had so much success in Russia is that those Western values have lost a great deal of its glitter; both because of what happened in Russia in the last two decades and what has happened to the West in the last decade.

No, I would say that its what has happened in Russia, mainly.  Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic states have had no trouble moving ahead.  The countries that have had a rough time were the ones directly affected by Russian corruption, like Ukraine, Belarus, the Central Asian states and, of course, Russia herself.

Russia was more affected because Russia was poorer and more distant from the center of Europe, and suffered worse politically and economically. 2000 was the turning point for Russia and 2001 showed what the US response would be; withdrawing from the ABM treaty unilaterally, while turning an essentially blind eye to human rights abuses. The message to Putin was that treaties don't pay, but nationalism does.

Of course, because Putin was an angel before the US did such things.  And man, we were mean to him...

"I looked into his eyes and saw his soul"

You're oversimplifying things. The US has limited influence over such things, but where we do have influence we can either use it wisely or unwisely...

It wasn't our job to pull Russia out of the gutter.

No, but we live in the same world as a Russia that has pulled itself out of the gutter by following Putin, hence his government's popularity and grip on the country.

Ummm... okay.  Did this debate have a point, because I know I didn't start off by arguing against you on that bit of obviousness.

Reading the thread, it looks like you started by saying that what happened in Russia was unaffected by the US because the Eastern European countries had different experiences, and I argued where US policy might have had some influence. Then you turned it around into "it's not our job/not our fault" which is something entirely different. It's certainly not our fault, but that doesn't mean we can't analyze our actions critically.

But if we played no major part in the outcome then what good does that do?  I'm the most introspective person you are likely to find, but following your reasoning, I really don't see the point.

[12th Doctor]

It would depend on the context.

We don't need to use the subjunctive here. The U.S. funded and promoted slaughter all throughout the world.

Did SAVAK need to exist to defeat the Soviet Union, or did the brutal oppression of the Iranian people and the overthrow of their democratic government allow the Islamic Revolution to take power and turn Iran against the U.S. for generations?

How much current "socialism" in Latin America is due to the memory of U.S. supported "capitalist" dictatorsips in the 70's and 80's?

Many 3rd world leaders dare not even use the word "capitalism" because they don't equate it with free movement of goods and services etc., they equate it with the U.S. government coming into your country, taking over its political establishment, selling out all your land to U.S. companies, stealing your natural resources and then telling you that you ought to be happy with the outcome.

That isn't Capitalism, it's imperialism. Now that we're not doing that anymore, and real Capitalism is (whether they like it or not) enriching Latin American countries, things are going really well for them. But tell them that it's Capitalism that has helped extend their life-expectancy or slashed poverty and they will balk because the idea of Capitalism was ruined for them by the U.S.'s reprehensible behavior in the 20th century.

The methods employed by the US were in response to far worse methods being used by the communists.  We had to respond, bottom line.  I would say this cycle started in Berlin, in 1946, but in fact it goes back to the very heart of communism.  Communism is not a compromise ideology.  Communism is not a moral ideology.  What is best in communism is that the revolution be advanced, regardless of the toll, and communists throughout history have behaved as such.  If our methods seemed brutal at times, it was because the people we were dealing with were infinity more so.

[12th Doctor]

Harsh methods to defeat the Soviet Union is one thing, but SAVAK did nothing but turn more people against the U.S. Pinochet the same. These crimes are inexcusable, and the fact that people in the U.S. think that torturing and murdering local populaces in 3rd world countries somehow helped to defeat the Soviet Union is just astonishing.

I'm confused.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912545-6,00.html

After the U.S. overthrew Iran's Parliamentary government and set up the Shah in power, his domestic intelligence/security agency, SAVAK, began doing all the terrible things you'd imagine from a dictatorial domestic intelligence agency.

These are the "harsh methods" that you were apparently supporting, but I doubt that once you read about what SAVAK, the Shah, and the U.S. were guilty of in Iran, that you will think this was something that helped defeat the Soviet Union. This was thuggery from an unpopular dictator desperately trying to keep his hold on power, nothing more. This was the work of a leader we had installed after deposing of a more-or-less democratically chosen Prime Minister. This is what I'm talking about. This is one of the atrocities that people throughout the 3rd world link with the U.S. and its influence.

Apparently you didn't get the joke.