Russian Parliament Approves Military Action in the Crimea

by ABibleStudent 43 Replies latest social current

• 

  fulltimestudent

  Robert:

  It seems that there are Russian's who are willing to critically think for themselves and express their opinions to the Russian government ...

  Oh! Does that mean that if their opinion coincides with yours, that you will see them as being able to think critically? And, if they don't agree with you, then they are NOT crtical thinkers?

  Taking the ability to think critically in a different direction. Do you think that many voters in the USA (where, I understand, only approx. 50% of the population vote, anyway), have the ability to think critically? If they do not think critically, how would you imagine they assess the critical and complex issues that face the US today? If the voters do not critically, what about their elected representatives, are there a lot of people that can think critically elected to the US congress and senate?

  ---------------

  In my last post, I did not quote all the interesting things said about aggressive US invasions of other states. Here's some more quotations. See what you think.

  The United States invaded another country almost every year from 1911 to 1927, occupying permanently or temporarily parts of Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Honduras and Nicaragua. Then they had a breather until 1954 when they invaded Guatemala. Then there were fleeting invasions through the agency of other people, like the anti-Castro Cubans in 1961, financed by the CIA or the military coups in Brazil, Uruguay, Guatemala, Bolivia and the very bloody one in Chile in 1973, organized by the Secretary of State, Kissinger, and then there was the support for the Argentinean generals, the invasion of the little island of Granada in 1983, and the bombing of Panama City in 1989.

  None of this takes into account the invasions of other countries in other continents, in Europe, Asia and Africa, and, as President Obama says, to “enforce the cooperation” of the people they invaded.

  And that is not taking into account their hundreds of military bases, just as Russia has in Sebastopol, in the recently annexed or rather re-annexed Ukrainian peninsula of the Crimea.

  President Obama, so well educated in the best Universities, does not know his own country’s history. Or, it is not so much that he is ignorant, but he does not want to acknowledge it. It is not only part of his indispensable presidential function to tell lies, but it also comes from his puritanical education in hypocrisy.

  The United States has never seen itself as an empire, and for that reason it allows itself the luxury of condemning the imperialism of other empires in the name of liberty. Russia, on the other hand, brutally boasts about having been an empire for centuries, and it aspires to continue being so. For that reason, its president, Vladimir Putin says that “the courage of the Russian soldiers has brought the Crimea into the Russian empire.” And he is referring back to the wars of Catherine the Great, who has that name because of her wars.

  Russia and the United States are two empires, which, during the Cold War ended up enjoying hegemony over their respective halves of the world. But the collapse of communism has removed their masks to show them up as nakedly imperial. Russia cannot pretend that it is promoting a socialist revolution anymore, and the United States cannot pretend that it is the defender of liberty. Each of them is reduced to promoting and defending their respective interests.

  How? Through what Obama calls “cooperation”. That is to say, through the use of force, the same thing for which he criticizes Putin
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Hi fulltimestudent, Have I said or done something to offend you? I don't care if people do not think like me. I only care if they independently research what they are told.

  You can continue to try to whip me for all the aggressive and dirty tricks that the American government has done throughout its history to other people and governments to promote American interests, or you can choose to have a conversation and exchange of ideas on how to help promote change in governments/organizations for the benefit of all individuals and not for a specific elite few.

  Before trying to give me more American history lessons, try asking a clarifying quesiton like, "How much do you know about atrocities committed by the American government and Americans?"

  In my Junior High School (sometimes referred to as middle school) I received the Daughters of the American Revolution History Award for having the highest score (94%) on a comprehensive multiple-choice test in the entire school that I did not study for at all. I am well aware of and acknowledge that the American government throughout its history has been the aggressor and done atrocities to Native Americans and neighboring countries in the name of "Manifest Destiny", land grabbing, and has had a callous disregard of spreading disease (i.e., small pox being the biggy) to indigenous people. I did not personally nor do I condon what the American government or individual Americans have done in the past. I prefer to learn from my mistakes and others.

  All I can do is write to the President and my political representatives when I agree or disagree with their actions. I have and will continue to do this about the Ukrainian Crisis, Health Care, revising income tax laws to protect people from dangerous cults, child abuse/molestation, and undue influence from BITE control. I like "win-win" situations instead of "I win you lose" situations, because I would rather make friends than enemies.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  fulltimestudent

  No need to be defensive, Robert. My questions are not aimed at you personally, but at the ideas presented. And, (for the record) discuss the miserable record of the USA in aggression against much smaller nations, only because of the difference between the rhetoric and practise.

  The rhetoric, of course, is likely aimed at the domestic market (voters) and succeeds because most commentators seem to prefer to believe the rhetoric, and not ask the sort of questions that 'critical thinking' demands.

  The questions I raised (and which you took personally) are questions that can be raised when considering International affairs, and are similar (in function) to those you raised in your lead paragraph.

  A student handout on 'critical thinking' (there's lots around) suggests:

  In order to display critical thinking, students need to develop skills in

  ♦ interpreting: understanding the significance of data and to clarify its meaning
  ♦ analysing: breaking information down and recombining it in different ways
  ♦ reasoning: creating an argument through logical steps
  ♦ evaluating: judging the worth, credibility or strength of accounts.

  Did my questions fail to meet that criteria?

  So let's ask another question:

  If the west argues that the forcible seizure of government by the present political alliance in the Ukrainian National Parliament is OK because it likely has the support of people in the west of the state, then surely it must also be OK for the formation of independent provincial (breakaway) governments in the east who prefer to align themselves with Russia because that's their preference?

  I suggest this graphic presentation (below) from the Chinese newspaper, Global Times describes outlines the problems in a straightforward way. Reference: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/850516.shtml#.U0w-tvmSx8E

  And, right at the bottom, this graphic provides some information that gets to the heart of why the National government in Kiev wants to hang on to the rebellious eastern provinces. Western Ukraine, where the new national government has its support base, is mainly agricultural. The only real industrialisation lies in the eastern (Russian speaking) provinces. And, those factories (rapidly becoming out-dated) have a supply chain connected to Russian markets and supply finished goods to Russian buyers. (IMO European buyers will not neccessarily replace Russian buyers).

  Ukraine, like so much of eastern Europe, is of artificial construction. The two sides, now that the division has crystallised, are unlikely to unite again as one nation.

  Should the two sides be forced to stay in the one bed? Or, should they be allowed to divorce and go their separate ways?

  There's another complication. If the west takes Ukraine, will they pay the huge energy bill (billions of dollars) that Ukraine owes Russia?

  Russia is threatening to cut off the supply, (or, at least, want cash for future supplies) unless there is a reasonable program and guarantee for paying the money owing. The USA says that's unreasonable. Is it?

  
• 

  ABibleStudent

  fulltimestudent - No need to be defensive, Robert. My questions are not aimed at you personally, but at the ideas presented. And, (for the record) discuss the miserable record of the USA in aggression against much smaller nations, only because of the difference between the rhetoric and practise.

  Hi fulltimestudent, I apologize for not responding to you sooner. I was busy and I was trying to figure out how to have a conversation and constructive exchange of ideas with you instead of unhealth communication. If you would like more information about what Steve Hassan might consider unhealthy communication, please watch his video How Big is the Phenomenon of Undue Influence? (2:01).

  Since you started using declarative statements about how I feel or how you interpret my responses instead of asking me clarifying questions, I do not feel inclined to continue responding to your comments in this thread that do not directly pertain to the topic of this thread. I prefer to respectfully exchange ideas and make friends.

  [My opinion and you are free to disagree with me without making personal value judgements.] I feel that unhealthy communications begin when the first person starts changing topics and/or makes declarative statements about the other person's feelings or actions without asking a clarifying question. The healthy conversations usually stop when unhealthy techniques (i.e., pointing fingers and changing topics) begin, because listening stops, and debating and positioning starts.

  After scanning topics that you started, it appears that you have diverse interests with a geographical focus in Asia. Although you joined JWN 3 years ago and did not start threads until ~ 1 year ago, you have started 13 pages of threads since then. I joined JWN 3 years ago and have only started 3 pages of threads. I'm limited to starting 1 thread per day. How many are you limited to?

  Thank you for shaing your JW experiences in My PERSONAL Complaint concerning Jehovah's Witnesses and for your pictures and insights of China

  I did not take your statements personally nor do I feel that I acted defensively towards your questions. I simply agreed with you that the USA has behaved badly in the past. When you wanted to continue to press your agenda about how the USA has behaved badly towards its neighbors, I decided to ask you a clarifying question to understand what were your intentions.

  My intention for this thread was not to bash any one country, but to explore how governments use BITE control techniques to "unduly influence" individuals and populations, how to identify those techniques, how to overcome those types of control techniques. how to uncover hidden agendas of governments/individuals (e.g., who benefits, who is afraid, or who hates), and possibly why governments/people revert to using those techniques.

  If your intentions are to solely express your opinions about how badly the USA has behaved to its neighbors in the past, I will not respond to your comments. If you would like to further discuss, how and what can be learned from this situation in Ukraine and the actions of those governments who are involved, then I am willing to make comments.

  fulltimestudent - If the west argues that the forcible seizure of government by the present political alliance in the Ukrainian National Parliament is OK because it likely has the support of people in the west of the state, then surely it must also be OK for the formation of independent provincial (breakaway) governments in the east who prefer to align themselves with Russia because that's their preference?

  I feel that as long as individuals are not unduly influenced (e.g., coerced) then they should choose their own destiny in a socially acceptable manner as individuals. When a population is voting on significant referendums (such as when changing allegiances, increases in taxes, and approving new types of spending such as entitlements) at least a 2/3 to 3/4 majority of voters need to approve it (with at least an 80% participation of eligible voters) in an election process free from "undue influence" and election rigging. Of course, it gets complicated when the population that wants to leave a country is in the minority of the total population, but is in the majority of the population in the area that affected by the voting.

  Do you feel any government/organization should use BITE control techniques to "unduly influence" others? Would you characterize Putin's administration's actions as benign or coercive?

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert