Quote (ofthevoid @ Mar 16 2017 08:09pm)

I'm critical of entities that i hold to higher standards. Systemic corruption in our country needs to be discussed and addressed not sweeped under the rug like the media did then run with a 8 month news cycle how the evil Russians whistle blew on our corrupt politicians. Instead of us seriously addressing counter democratic laws like in my state ( where you have to be registered 6 months before hand to vote in a primary) our news cycles are congested with non news.

Corruption, oligarchy, etc. in Russia is news to no one, but using this as a smokescreen for many of our problems is plain misleading.

Quote (IceMage @ Mar 17 2017 08:14am)

There was a lot of discussion during the primaries of the "rigged" primary process in some states, and the "rigged" super-delegate system the Democrats have. We're past that now. The PotUS and his campaign's relationship with Russia is important, especially considering they have lied(or conveniently forgotten) multiple times, Trump won't release his tax returns, Russia interfered in our election, and for some weird reason Trump can't seem to say anything negative about Putin. Sweeping that story under the rug is Trump/Putin hackery.

Quote (fender @ 17 Mar 2017 05:22)

the thing about my "last line" is: what you just described is something we realistically have to expect - unfortunately. the invading part, however, the one you described as "not worse in any way" than the alleged "coup", hopefully not. just imagine the mayhem if a military invasion to protect your interests was ACTUALLY considered an appropriate and equal reaction to a country's meddling with another country's affairs for political or economic reasons...
so sure, you can PHRASE it both ways but it doesn't necessarily have the same effect, that's where false equivalence comes back to bite you.

btw, i deliberately chose the word "alleged" to address your "principled" approach towards proof and guilt, because it looks a little less commendable if it only applies when it fits your agenda.
i'm sure you mean well and consider it wise not to judge hastily and rather rely on solid proof, and no one could possibly disagree with that. however, it's somewhat cowardly to hide behind it as an empty phrase when something is obviously true, just not technically proven - you're smart enough to know there is not a single russian court that would (or could for that matter) investigate these murders independently, so i guess considering your stance regarding "proof and guilt" in THIS matter, putin is basically incapable of ever being responsible.

seriously though, you should really do some research regarding the deaths of putin / kremlin critics like litvinenko, nemtsov, politkovskaya, estemirova, markelov... the bogus charges against khodorkovsky and navalny - guess it's just pure coincidence that putin critics happen to be poison and bullet addicts, prone to suicide and criminal behaviour, huh?
but even if you are dead set against acknowledging the most obvious connections (like putin's organised crime connections) because they haven't technically been proven by a russian court of law, just look at how putin had the constitution amended in his favour, or do you have an excuse for that as well?

Quote (Thor123422 @ 17 Mar 2017 13:56)

They're not powerhouses, but they definitely meet the criteria of successful and stable.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 17 Mar 2017 13:56)

They're not powerhouses, but they definitely meet the criteria of successful and stable.

Quote (zarkadon @ 17 Mar 2017 15:53)

Turkey with all those coups and Nigeria with all those terrorist controlled areas and their war with Boko Haram are successful and stable?

Ghana works out I think. So does South Africa, Cape Verde, Gabon and some of the Maghreb countries.

The main problem these countries have is that they lack resources. When ampoo says "excluding oil money states", well there you go, that's the problem, they don't have the right conditions to develop and compete with the rest of the world. But there are definitely several african and middle east countries that are doing really well for their post-colonial circumstances.

Quote (ampoo @ 17 Mar 2017 16:07)

well turkey...what happens there right now speaks for itself
nigeria is a terrorist hotspot with unimaginable corruption, environmental pollution and overpopulation
ghana is okay for african standards at least, still rank 140 in the human development index with serious problems and a history of coups

well yeah, its a matter of perspective i suppose



thinking of the congo, one could say ressources can also be a curse
lack of ressources can also be a factor to promote hard work and development, like japan and south korea

can work both ways :p
i cant stress enough that its almost entirely up to the population how wealthy and stable their countries is

Quote (zarkadon @ 17 Mar 2017 16:49)

Japan and SK had billions of dollars of aid injected by the US though.

First you need a stable democracy, and then you need the money and resources to get things rolling. For many african countries it's not easy to achieve the first part because of several factors, the two main ones being:

1. The world's superpowers have historically been comfortable with tyrants running those countries as long as they were economically and/or politcally beneficial to their interests.
2. Many of the countries in Africa have been artificially created. Just look at how the borders were made, with a ruler... no rivers or mountainranges to act as natural borders. The world's superpowers decided to divide Africa into colonies in the 19th century, often dividing tribes and ethnic/cultural groups between different colonies while at the same time jamming up together different cultures and tribes that have nothing in common and don't get along. There's just little chance for stability to happen, regardless of the people's effort.

Quote (Scaly @ Mar 17 2017 03:19am)

Evil is a simple concept invented by simple minds who fail to understand even the basics of the complexity of the human condition. It is a platitude for people who don't want to investigate further.

Quote (zarkadon @ 17 Mar 2017 15:40)

Not sure why you say I'm only applying it to "my agenda", when I do apply it to any world leader (not to mention that Putin doesn't represent my "agenda").

I don't see this false equivalence you speak of. Supporting coups against a legitimate government is awful and undemocratic. I don't know why we shouldn't be expecting these kind of "invasions" when the NATO has been carrying them out all over the world for years, often with less reasons to justify one. The only difference is that this time it's the russians doing it and we're upset about it. Nice double standards. I insist that I don't approve of what they're doing, but I don't think they did any more wrong than we did. If you think supporting a coup is better, then fine but I disagree.

And about him ammending the constitution in his favour... I don't like it, but I don't judge it either. He carried it out legally, with the support of his people and the support of all the parties in the parliament except the communists. It's a russian affair and, just like I don't tell americans to give free healthcare to everyone and abolish their primitive second ammendment, I will not tell russians how to run their country.

Quote (ampoo @ 17 Mar 2017 11:53)

as a matter of fact, they cant
try to name a single successful and stable country that is controlled by africans or arabs and is not an oil money state
good luck

there is not a single one, and that does not even include my own opinion about islam etc, its a simple fact for everyone to see