Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

[highfigh]

Menken's quote has great appeal. Maybe more tailored to a country that was free with an educated population that ended up voting in a tyranny. That the people would deserve for allowing it to happen.

As for the Russian people, they have no history of freedom of speech, nor an educated population outside of Soviet propaganda and it's successors in schools. The Soviets did do a good job in the field of STEM, hell they got into space but with the help of captured German scientists. Lenin took away all their guns after revolution of 1917. It suffices to say that with out a 1st or 2nd amendment as we in the US know it, the people are at the mercy of their rulers. Unless there is a total surrender as in Germany and Japan in 1945 we in the West are not going to impose anything outside of a nuclear war. The Russians are going to have to shoot their way to a new government.

Old quote from a Judge Parker of the DC court from a 1988 1st amendment case is pretty spot on.
"The US was founded by people whose views were considered subversive and who offered what the establishment regarded as unacceptable views" Those people had to shoot there way to freedom.

I would say they don't have a 4th, 5th or 6th Amendment, either.

They could have a new government if Ukraine, Sweden & Finland join NATO and Russia attacks any of them. Rule 5 could end Russia as we know it but that will come with some serious risks- if there's any way NATO and the US can 'catch them with their pants down', what was the Kremlin will be below grade and if reports that Putin is in a bunker below it, he'll be gone.

 

[GO-NAD!]

This reminds me of the famous quote: "Every nation gets the government it deserves." Joseph Maistre, Letter 76, on the topic of Russia's new constitutional laws (27 August 1811); published in Lettres et Opuscules.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre

Although the version by H.L. Menken also has some appeal: “People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.”

On the other hand, if the quotes above are "true" in some general sense, perhaps Russia needs a government it doesn't actually deserve, namely, a government that is honest, transparent, respects human rights, and is not fixated on fairy tale versions of history.

I find both quotes to present simplistic - if not outright specious - arguments. I had heard of Mencken, but didn't really know anything about him.
H. L. Mencken - Wikipedia
His views leave much to be desired.

Regardless, I agree that Russia needs a better government than the present one.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Menken's quote has great appeal. Maybe more tailored to a country that was free with an educated population that ended up voting in a tyranny. That the people would deserve for allowing it to happen.

As for the Russian people, they have no history of freedom of speech, nor an educated population outside of Soviet propaganda and it's successors in schools. The Soviets did do a good job in the field of STEM, hell they got into space but with the help of captured German scientists. Lenin took away all their guns after revolution of 1917. It suffices to say that with out a 1st or 2nd amendment as we in the US know it, the people are at the mercy of their rulers. Unless there is a total surrender as in Germany and Japan in 1945 we in the West are not going to impose anything outside of a nuclear war. The Russians are going to have to shoot their way to a new government.

Old quote from a Judge Parker of the DC court from a 1988 1st amendment case is pretty spot on.
"The US was founded by people whose views were considered subversive and who offered what the establishment regarded as unacceptable views" Those people had to shoot there way to freedom.

I'm not so sure that the 2nd amendment has been much help in assuring American freedom.
Freedom Index by Country 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)
I would suggest that any democratic country that needs a right to firearms ownership enshrined in its constitution in order to ensure that other rights are respected is a pretty fragile democracy.

 

[GO-NAD!]

German businesses, unions oppose boycott of Russian oil and natural gas | CBC News
Maybe there's something I'm missing, but how you can voluntarily place yourself at the mercy of such a pernicious and venal regime?

 

[SithZedi]

I'm not so sure that the 2nd amendment has been much help in assuring American freedom.
Freedom Index by Country 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)
I would suggest that any democratic country that needs a right to firearms ownership enshrined in its constitution in order to ensure that other rights are respected is a pretty fragile democracy.

Yes the matter has been quite "controversial" to say the least amoung modern historians. The US republic is 246 years old and has had a fairly clear record of freedom with that amendment in place as well as the others in the Constitution. The big three are freedom of speech, private property rights, and right to arms. The last one is essential to keeping first two. They and the rest were specifically put it the document to limit the federal governments powers and prevent a central accumulation of power. Based on that document and subsequent amendments, the US grew to become the largest economy in the world as early as the 1890s (depending on how one tabulates the British Empire).

The constitution, the free market economy, and its people helped generate what historians would call "American exceptionalism" with apologies to Canada for use of Americanism. The military this "US system" generated has kept the world free since 1917. The three world wars of the 1900s(Cold War) included would have ended quite differently. If this US system had not existed those countries in that Freedom Index might not be so free now. If the US didn't exist would Canada exist as it now does? Would it have continued to be colony of the British Empire or of Nazi Germany or something else? The "If's" of history.

What the US will evolve into is up to history. We'll see what the next 100 years bring. Obviously my own view on the right to firearms preserves freedom differs from yours and others but that's life isn't it.

 

[cpp]

m not so sure that the 2nd amendment has been much help in assuring American freedom.

Well, The SAS (a 2018 report from the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. ) estimates that American civilians own 393 million guns, and on another poll in America Gun Facts 81.4 million Americans own these guns. But I would think those guns #'s are more these days since not all guns are registered and a lot more guns were purchased after 2018 I would say upwards to 400 million + . The highest in the world for any country. Not to mention a lot of these owners own a lot of ammo. Of course this freedom means, someone invades the US, its not just the military they will have to fight.

Oh saw this,

 

[GO-NAD!]

Yes the matter has been quite "controversial" to say the least amoung modern historians. The US republic is 246 years old and has had a fairly clear record of freedom with that amendment in place as well as the others in the Constitution. The big three are freedom of speech, private property rights, and right to arms. The last one is essential to keeping first two. They and the rest were specifically put it the document to limit the federal governments powers and prevent a central accumulation of power. Based on that document and subsequent amendments, the US grew to become the largest economy in the world as early as the 1890s (depending on how one tabulates the British Empire).

The constitution, the free market economy, and its people helped generate what historians would call "American exceptionalism" with apologies to Canada for use of Americanism. The military this "US system" generated has kept the world free since 1917. The three world wars of the 1900s(Cold War) included would have ended quite differently. If this US system had not existed those countries in that Freedom Index might not be so free now. If the US didn't exist would Canada exist as it now does? Would it have continued to be colony of the British Empire or of Nazi Germany or something else? The "If's" of history.

What the US will evolve into is up to history. We'll see what the next 100 years bring. Obviously my own view on the right to firearms preserves freedom differs from yours and others but that's life isn't it.

Well, democracies such as Canada, western Europe and the Antipodes don't need a right to private arms ownership to protect the other freedoms you refer to. I don't know why anyone feels the US is different in that regard. Maybe at the time of the USA's founding, being almost unique in the world as a representative democracy, it was felt to necessary. But certainly, none of the American achievements you listed came about as a result of private firearms ownership.

Notwithstanding the efforts made by the US during the World Wars, the freedoms enjoyed by democracies around the world do not depend on private firearms ownership in the US.

You raise an interesting question regarding the existence of Canada. If the US did not exist, it is quite possible that Canada wouldn't either - but perhaps not for the reasons you might think. The fact is, there was little interest amongst Canadian provinces to come together as a Confederation until the US Civil War. Up to that point, they were "fat, dumb and happy", - as the saying goes - seeing little benefit to such an arrangement. But, being wary of US expansionism and the gargantuan size of the US Army after the Civil War, it was considered to be a prudent course of action. And, Great Britain was tiring of being responsible for defending the Canadian provinces, so there was little argument from the "Mother Country". They were quite happy to cut the apron strings.

 

[haraldo]

This reminds me of the famous quote: "Every nation gets the government it deserves." Joseph Maistre, Letter 76, on the topic of Russia's new constitutional laws (27 August 1811); published in Lettres et Opuscules.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre

Although the version by H.L. Menken also has some appeal: “People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.”

On the other hand, if the quotes above are "true" in some general sense, perhaps Russia needs a government it doesn't actually deserve, namely, a government that is honest, transparent, respects human rights, and is not fixated on fairy tale versions of history.

I think the russian government reflects the general attitude of russians, from what I know it is an extremely violent country of violent self-centered people. All russians that do not directly oppose the war are responsible for what happens in Ukraine.

 

[Mikado463]

I'm not so sure that the 2nd amendment has been much help in assuring American freedom.
Freedom Index by Country 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)
I would suggest that any democratic country that needs a right to firearms ownership enshrined in its constitution in order to ensure that other rights are respected is a pretty fragile democracy.

While misquoted 80 years ago https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/ , I'm not so sure that it might not be true today ......

 

[SithZedi]

Well, democracies such as Canada, western Europe and the Antipodes don't need a right to private arms ownership to protect the other freedoms you refer to. I don't know why anyone feels the US is different in that regard. Maybe at the time of the USA's founding, being almost unique in the world as a representative democracy, it was felt to necessary. But certainly, none of the American achievements you listed came about as a result of private firearms ownership.

Notwithstanding the efforts made by the US during the World Wars, the freedoms enjoyed by democracies around the world do not depend on private firearms ownership in the US.

Enjoyed your interesting comments on Canada. One never knows the if's of history. I think private firearms ownership is an essential component in "American" history and the development of the nation. Without it, we don't get the US as we know it nor the America that helped keep freedom in the rest of the world, as jingoistic as that sounds. Maybe, the rest of the worlds democracies don't need that right because the US existed and still does to backstop their freedom. What if China and Russia allowed private ownership of weapons? Think that those governments might be as authoritarian as they are and more under the control of their people, as it should be?
Interesting questions to debate.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Anyway, back on topic, I found this interesting.

Thread by @irgarner on Thread Reader App

@irgarner: If you want to understand what Russia believes it's doing in invading Ukraine, crying wolf about "NATO" and the West, and risking much bigger wars, you have to understand the history of Russian messiani...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

I think the russian government reflects the general attitude of russians, from what I know it is an extremely violent country of violent self-centered people. All russians that do not directly oppose the war are responsible for what happens in Ukraine.

I've heard quite a few people say that the Russian culture and people are violent. I really don't know if this is true, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the Russian military is perfectly okay with killing innocent civilians.

For example, here's a quote from just before the invasion of Ukraine:

>>>"The history of Russia's military interventions -- be it in Ukraine or Syria, or its military campaign at home in Chechnya -- is tainted with blatant disregard for international humanitarian law," said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International's Secretary General.
"The Russian military repeatedly flouted the laws of war by failing to protect civilians and even attacking them directly. Russian forces have launched indiscriminate attacks, used banned weapons and sometimes apparently deliberately targeted civilians and civilian objects -- a war crime."<<<

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/04/europe/russia-military-culture-brutality-intl/index.html

I do agree that Russians who don't oppose the war bear some responsibility for it.

 

[shadyJ]

I've heard quite a few people say that the Russian culture and people are violent. I really don't know if this is true, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the Russian military is perfectly okay with killing innocent civilians.

I am not Mr. Russian history, but I don't know of any Russian military campaign where they didn't treat civilians atrociously. Their treatment of women in WW2 in countries that they invaded is legendarily heinous. Their treatment of civilians in Hungary in 1956 and Afghanistan in the 1980s also exhibited extreme savagery. The same goes for Chechens. Chechnya was one of the most dangerous places in the world during the second Russian invasion, and a large percentage of the civilian population was simply erased.

To be fair, "humane" or civilized treatment of civilians by an invading army is a relatively new concept, historically speaking, and maybe Russia is just old school. I think a factor is that Russian military "training" is so brutal and degrading that it turns their soldiers into thuggish trash. Whatever the case, here is hoping for the total annihilation of the Russian military and their entire military culture.

 

[haraldo]

I realized that the parent company, which owns the company I work for has an operation in russia and refuse to withdraw. Completely unacceptable.

As a consequence I have resigned with immediate effects in protest of the company supporting russia. And I also sent this statement of protest to CEO, COO and Chief Compliance Officer.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I realized that the parent company, which owns the company I work for has an operation in russia and refuse to withdraw. Completely unacceptable.

As a consequence I have resigned with immediate effects in protest of the company supporting russia. And I also sent this statement of protest to CEO, COO and Chief Compliance Officer.

You are to be commended for standing by your principles at personal financial cost.

Slava Ukrayini!

 

[highfigh]

I'm not so sure that the 2nd amendment has been much help in assuring American freedom.
Freedom Index by Country 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)
I would suggest that any democratic country that needs a right to firearms ownership enshrined in its constitution in order to ensure that other rights are respected is a pretty fragile democracy.

Not enough people consider the real problem of guns and their availability, use and misuse, which I have been harping on for years- the problem is PEOPLE, who are unwilling to stop committing crimes and who are far too reactive. Gaining access to guns by felons, people who don't secure them, people who go to parties and get into arguments with 'friends' or acquaintances, neighbors who are mad at their neighbor, so they shoot up a house where a day dare operates (real, recent event), shooting at a car during an argument and killing someone...

Also, don't forget that far more guns are used for suicide- this means people aren't paying attention to the mental condition of those around them when the person who chooses this method actually have people around them.

Gangs transfer guns around the country and it's definitely not done legally. The guns are often stolen, used in crimes, then moved to other cities so they can't be tracked easily. Recently, a gun dealership/range owner, his son and wife were killed by someone who then stole several guns- this turd was caught- not sure of his motivation.

Criminals won't be affected by any new gun laws and they aren't affected by any current laws.

Some people do have what could be considered an unhealthy attraction to guns and weapons, in general. Personally, I don't understand the reason late night TV has infomercials for knives in bulk- they advertise groups of all kinds and sometimes, it's close to 100 of them!

Our rights are more about limiting the government than telling us what we can/can't do. Unfortunately, we're pretty far along the path to chaos and there are many reasons I believe this.

 

[highfigh]

Well, The SAS (a 2018 report from the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. ) estimates that American civilians own 393 million guns, and on another poll in America Gun Facts 81.4 million Americans own these guns. But I would think those guns #'s are more these days since not all guns are registered and a lot more guns were purchased after 2018 I would say upwards to 400 million + . The highest in the world for any country. Not to mention a lot of these owners own a lot of ammo. Of course this freedom means, someone invades the US, its not just the military they will have to fight.

Oh saw this, View attachment 55509

And Switzerland leads Europe in guns/100 people- the difference is in the people, as I have posted many times. The stats indicate LEGAL ownership but doesn't dig into illegal possession.

A map of gun ownership in Europe - Voxeurop

This interactive map shows the firearms possession rate per 100 inhabitants. Although they are far from reaching rates found in the US, Europeans are by no means unarmed.

voxeurop.eu

 

[haraldo]

Kramatorsk: a dog is waiting for its owner, a soldier who is being operated on after he suffered injuries at the front.
Photo by Reuters.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I've heard quite a few people say that the Russian culture and people are violent. I really don't know if this is true, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the Russian military is perfectly okay with killing innocent civilians.

For example, here's a quote from just before the invasion of Ukraine:

>>>"The history of Russia's military interventions -- be it in Ukraine or Syria, or its military campaign at home in Chechnya -- is tainted with blatant disregard for international humanitarian law," said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International's Secretary General.
"The Russian military repeatedly flouted the laws of war by failing to protect civilians and even attacking them directly. Russian forces have launched indiscriminate attacks, used banned weapons and sometimes apparently deliberately targeted civilians and civilian objects -- a war crime."<<<

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/04/europe/russia-military-culture-brutality-intl/index.html

I do agree that Russians who don't oppose the war bear some responsibility for it.

I have some empathy for people who get nothing but a web of lies from their government and government-controlled media. When the choice is between believing the BS or considering the possibility of a brutal alternative, it's human nature to take comfort in the soft, warm $hit.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1516517836491046918

 

[Mr._Clark]

I have some empathy for people who get nothing but a web of lies from their government and government-controlled media. When the choice is between believing the BS or considering the possibility of a brutal alternative, it's human nature to take comfort in the soft, warm $hit.

I struggle with this (are people who are being fed nonstop BS still responsible for believing the BS?)

I saw an interview with a Russian woman who said she fully supported Putin. The interviewer asked her about videos showing the bodies of Ukrainian citizens, adn she responded that these were all fake and she only watched state run TV because it was the only thing she believed. In my opinion, people who actively choose to ignore any information that contradicts their beliefs bear some responsibility for their own ignorance.

The twitter feed you posted mentioned cognitive dissonance. From my perspective as an armchair shrink with no training or expertise whatsoever, I suspect that this is a significant factor in a lot of the denial and wilful ignorance. Who wants to believe they are contributing to slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians, that their sons died in an effort to force tyranny on innocents, that they are collectively a country of completely clueless A holes?

There's no doubt that Putin's "strength" is spewing B.S. propaganda. He's been doing it for 20 years and it has had an effect. But there are people in Russia who see though it, so I don't think the willfully ignorant get a free pass. They are, after all, adults with brains (yes, I'm dancing around the issue of free will).