I really can't believe some of what I've been reading here today.

[TheMightyFavog]

All these posts calling for President Obama to militarily intervene in Ukraine. Hell, I've even seen a couple of DUers go out and call on Obama to do the unthinkable and put the use of WMDs on the table.

What the hell happened to the DU I knew and loved when I joined back in 2002? Back then, DU was the beacon of sanity among the cacophony of war drums being beaten for Iraq. It was DU that inspired me to get involved in trying to steer my country away from the disaster that was the war in Iraq. It was stories of the activism of my fellow DUers that inspired a few friends and I to pile into my beat up 1992 Ford Tempo and drive an hour and a half to the nearest antiwar demonstration. It was DU that gave me the courage to go along with my friend's idea to gather in front of our county's courthouse to make our voices heard in a community where the majority of residents not only practically worshiped the ground that George W. Bush walked on, but also were practically chomping at the bit to see Saddam Hussein get a dose of candy coated kaboom courtesy of the good old U.S. of A.. Hell, some of the more ignorant of these people would have liked nothing better than to see Bush turn Baghdad into a glass parking lot.

However, march we did. We were a small group, but we made our opinions known. We spent hours in the cold waving our signs, singing songs, and trying to make our voices heard.

And yes, we got heckled. We got flipped off. We had people write nasty letters to the editor in our local newspapers calling us everything from communists to Satanists to traitors who hated America. And among all that hate that was being slung at us, DU was my refuge of sanity. It was where I could go to be around like minded people, and to know that I was not alone. That there were others like me who felt that military action against Iraq was a very bad idea. It was a place where we could deride and even poke fun at on the Bush administration and its supporters without fear of someone getting all in our face about how unamerican we were. And it's one of the reasons I still continue to treasure this place.

And now, we come to today. And now I'm hearing the very residents of the place that was (and still is) my refuge of sanity banging the war drums themselves. Wow, it's kind of darkly ironic.

That's all I have to say, except for may cooler heads prevail, and may this scary time pass with the fewest lives lost.

[Heidi]

1. Recommended.

[Puglover]

66. Why I'll do the same!

AND give you a big ole

[Heidi]

68. Hello, handsome!

[WhiteTara]

108. Puglover!

That is the best sig line I've EVER seen! I'm still laughing!

[Puglover]

109. Thanks.

Feel free to use it if it makes you smile.

[WhiteTara]

122. May I? It's so great!

still laughing!

[Aerows]

135. I've always loved it too

It's hilarious Puglover, even though they are not my favorite breed of dog.

[bleedinglib]

274. Hey Puglover!!

I have 2 Pugs, one fawn & one black. Great Pets!!

[Puglover]

297. Just one here.

My Rocco.

[NBachers]

2. TheMightyFavog Speaks- TheMightyFavog Speaks For Me

[TheMightyFavog]

123. It's not very often people have said that about me.

Thank you.

[LongTomH]

125. And for me!

We need sanity and cool heads at a time like this!

[Aerows]

136. And for me! n/t

[Chris Diesel]

3. American Imperialism

I think people are buying into the corporate Television meme that the Russians are bad.

If anybody would look closer they would see that Russia was being sold off to the 1% before Putin. Not that he doesn't have his own problems.

Also that Ukraine has a majority of voters that favor Russia. The ousted leader was voted into power.

Russia under Putin is not going along with the one world bank that the Builderbergs want, therefore he must be curtailed

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. And how does persecuting gays/killing journalists/imprisoning Pussy Riot

And boarding Greenpeace ships to imprison them factor into Putin's fight against the 1%?

People here are pretty loony when it comes to cutting Putin some slack.

[MADem]

20. You got that right.

Bottom line--we don't need to go do any invading, but we can join with other thinking members of the world community and call Putin the asshole that he is; excoriate him for it, too, both diplomatically and in terms of trade relations.

[cheapdate]

58. I agree completely with that approach.

[loudsue]

69. Thank you, MADem: the voice of reason!

War is a racket, pure and simple. And the rulers of the world are corporatists, for the most part, who favor war, and are under the thumb of the 1%.

Calling it what it is is the only sane thing to do.

[Flatulo]

119. You're becoming one of my favorite DUers. nt

[Adrahil]

127. I wish I could LIKE this post. Nicely said. NT

[freshwest]

145. MADem, yes, not going to invade Russia or nuke them. I'm glad I've missed any calls for it here.

Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Guess I'm not the authoritarian swooning Obama worshipper I'm called. Yes, I can still say gladly, I love it when I wake up in the morning and Barack Obama is president.

Because he won't invade or bomb Russia or any other place. So I'm confident my president won't heed the calls of those who always think of war the 'only resort' and sneer at diplomacy.

In a world facing challenges, wasteful destruction is not an option for respected world leaders to solve problems. But Democrats know that:

If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace.

~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

That is what is being done today. Obama, as usual, is excoriated from the left and right, but he'll let the world community work this out, not try to impose a solution just for American interests. It's the 'new normal' but some people can't comprehend that.



GOTV on all the elections of 2014 going on now to shut down the hawks in D.C. Piss on the warmongering media.

Guess I'll post this video again:

to Segami:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4582939

Those calling for Obama to go to war or insisting that he wants to, have NOT listened to the man, I find too many just repeat what they've been told, never taken the time to honestly do so.

See you later.

[Hekate]

174. +1 freshwest and MADem

Can't say it better, being just stunned by some of the warmongering lunacy at DU.

To those who think we need boots on the ground in the Ukraine: Remember we're still involved in Syria, and we have to be careful not to get over-extended.

[freshwest]

185. Ah, yes, the sarcasm icon may still be needed here! Sorry you saw the crazy, though.

The situation in Ukraine was and is, in the true sense of the term, byzantine. It's gone on longer than the USA was a dream of Europeans seeking to found in principle, if not in fact, a country based on the ideals learned from the Enlightenment. A process that is still being perfected, and always against great odds.

And it's odd, isn't it, that the claims of war being waged by Obama or wailing that he is not being aggressive, is coming from the left and the right? That some see WW3, and the Russians going wild in Europe?

I don't believe it is possible, but I understand that for many years that was the outcome. But that is the fear I see from one side - perhaps that is the 'warmongering' side being discussed. Read threads going all one way or the other, I'm wondering how they feel.

Not many facts are coming forward, a lot of opinion more than anything else. But I've seen some facts and events and excellent reasoning posted and those are the voices I want to learn from and enlarge my view of the bigger picture.

As far as the fighting here, I've come to believe the extremism of some who 'fight for peace' is the same energy as those who 'fight for freedom' like BushCo claimed. The world should not to be made to fit in an American mold, we are not even a finished product yet!

Some hate those who want a neutral view of things, no gray area allowed. Some wonderful mental gymnastics are being performed here. I am pissing off people because I still admit I don't know and am trying to find out, without prejudice to any of the parties involved.

I won't 'take a side' about what is done in a country so far away. Because it's not my life at risk, it's theirs. We are armchair quarterbacking here, they are making history there.

[Hekate]

231. WSJ and LATimes have some very good articles w/historical perspective

Hubby kept reading me quotes over breakfast, and I'll read them in toto this evening. In particular look for WSJ page A10 "Russian Scenarios Have Familiar Look" -- sorry I can't provide links just now, as I'm on my iPad mini and still find it awkward to go from one site to another; don't know how to do some things without a mousie.

Vladimir (still not our friend) Putin is an intelligent SOB with the long view and capability of long range planning. However, as Fareed Zakaria points out in his first five minutes of this morning's GPS, there are options for the US and the EU that include kicking him out of the G8, not necessarily getting sucked into yet another unwinnable war.

[davidpdx]

319. By war being war being waged by Obama are you referring to the claims of CIA involvement?

I'm just curious.

[freshwest]

324. That or some version of voodoo being practiced. Sometimes just being POTUS = Evil Monster. And...

I'm sure it's why their hair turns white in office. It's been said that the value of being in the office of the American presidency - and it's not about the office holder - is so much knowledge of how the world really works, that most people could not bear to know it.

Impossible to please all the competing interests. Because in some things, actions must be taken (economic, social, trade or between nations) to keep the greater whole going for the good of hundereds of millions of Americans.

Most of whom live blissfully and willfully ignorant of the manufactured stability that enables them to live their lives, which they take for granted. They don't have to dirty their hands with the compromises they yell about. And all of the options that are available to a president to use, without the magical wand they want him to wave, truly suck.

In the meanwhile, they can indulge themselves in fantasy lives and pretend they don't how many hands and deals are involved in creating their home, cars and jobs; where their water, gas and food comes from, because they do not want the guilt. So the POTUS, government and other unpopular groups are the ones that feed them and are blamed.

JMHO as I've been thinking things out for some time. YVMV.

[davidpdx]

335. Well put

I totally agree

[Isoldeblue]

254. Said so well, freshwest!

[ismnotwasm]

298. +1

[moriah]

177. Thank you. Wish I could recommend a comment! n/t

[PosterChild]

236. +10 (nt)

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

275. +1

[davidpdx]

320. + 1000

Squash the DU meme that we don't have any right to care about other countries. I agree we shouldn't invade, but we sure darn well have a right to defend human rights. It is appalling some of the crap being said on DU lately.

[BBR Esq]

73. Some people want to see everything as

black and white, good and evil, good guys and bad guys.

It makes the world so much easier to take when you see only what you want to see.

[freshwest]

191. John Cleese said it makes 'em FEEL GOOD:

Full Transcript:

Seriously though, we've heard a lot about extremism recently, a nastier harsher atmosphere everywhere, more abuse and bother-boy behavior, less friendliness and tolerance and respect for opponents.

Alright, but what we never hear about extremism is its advantages!

Well. The biggest advantage of extremism is that it makes you feel GOOD because it provides you with enemies.

Let me explain. The great thing about having enemies is that you can pretend that all the badness in the whole world is in your enemies, and all the goodness in the whole world is in YOU.

Attractive, isn't it?

So, if you have a lot of anger and resentment in you anyway and you therefore enjoy abusing people, then you can pretend that you're only doing it because these enemies of yours are such very bad persons! And if it wasn't for them, you'd actually be good natured, and courteous, and rational all the time. So, if you want to FEEL GOOD, become an extremist!

Okay, now you have a choice.

If you join the hard left, they'll give you their list of authorized enemies. Almost all kinds of authorities, especially the police, city, Americans, judges, multi-national corporations, public schools, farriers, newspaper owners, fox hunters, generals, class traitors and of course, moderates.

Or if you'd rather be an extremist on the hard right, no problem, fine, you still get the lovely list of enemies, only they're different. Noisy minority groups, unions, Russia, weirdos, demonstrators, welfare sponges, meddlesome clergy, peaceniks, the BBC, strikers, social workers, Communists and of course, moderates. And upstart actors.

Now. Once you're armed with one of these super lists of enemies, you can be as nasty as you like and yet feel feel your behavior is morally justified.

So you can strut around, abusing people, and telling them you could eat them for breakfast and still think of yourself as a champion of the truth. A fighter for the greater good. And not the rather sad paranoid schizoid that you really are.

[BBR Esq]

194. Hit the nail right on the head.

[Demsrule86]

343. War is not the answer

Hi to all...I had an account here but posted mostly on Huffingtonpost ...but that site is on the rocks and my friends said this is still a great site so hope it is OK if I answer the above post...you would think people would have learned after Iraq and Afghanistan that war never solves anything...I don't understand what Obama should do...what did Bush do after they invaded Georgia? We can not continue as the policemen of the world...I see massive aid is going to the Ukraine but nothing for Detroit...that is f'd up. When will we care for our own?

[sulphurdunn]

75. You are conflating

unrelated issues. Aiding and abetting the overthrow of a democratically elected government that had decided to increase its economic ties with Russia rather than the EU is a very different kettle of fish from Russian domestic violations of civil rights. Putin is not the issue, Ukrainian democracy and national sovereignty are.

[PosterChild]

113. Strengthening and Encouraging...

...democracy in a region that has historically been under the thumb of a foreign totalitarian power is not "aiding and abetting" the over through of a democratically elected government.

Civil and political rights are at the core of democracy, and supporting and encouraging a people to exercise their civil liberties is strengthening and encouraging democracy. Russian's endemic domestic violations of civil rights show them to be a regressive, reactionary and tyrannical influence that does not have democratic credibility or legitimacy - but only force.

Vitaly Churkin, Russia's UN ambassador, observes that problems began only after steps toward membership in the EU were postponed. "Why did this problem have to result in street demonstrations? Why were the demonstrations encouraged by people from the EU?"

Why? Because of "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Someone must have mentioned that to them. Listen up, Churkin - that's democracy, mother fucker!

[sulphurdunn]

114. Exactly how in the hell does the overthrow

of a democratically elected government by a minority who can't defeat it electorally and who enlist the aid of foreign powers to do so strengthen democracy?

[PosterChild]

139. As a people becomes enlightened and learns, they progress...

... towards greater political and civil liberty - towards more authentic democracy.

The Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics was a democracy, and Ukraine was one of those republics. Did the collapse of the Soviet Union advance or retard democracy for the Russian people? For the people of Ukraine? And if so, how could the "overthrow of a democracy" advance democracy?

The Russian people took a step forward by overthrowing their previous democracy and replacing it with the current, more democratic government. But obviously, given the persecution of gays, killing of journalists, imprisonment of activist like Pussy Riot, they have a long way to go; they just aren't there yet.

The EU is, quite obviously, an advanced, enlightened and vastly more humane, liberal democratic society than Russia. By aligning themselves with the western liberal democracies, and moving away from the regressive, more authoritarian democracy of the former Soviet Union, the people of the Ukraine are moving their democracy forward.

They are replacing an authoritarian regime with democratic tendencies by a more authentically liberal, democratic and civil society. Solidarity!

[rhett o rick]

117. How many Vietnamese and Iraqis have we killed during our "strengthening and encouraging"

democracy. We have a poor record when we meddle.

[Plucketeer]

121. Man, that's my foremost thought here!

If EVER there was a case of a pot calling the kettle black - it's with our official condemnation of Russia's actions here. Hell, the Russians are simply following our repeated examples!

[PosterChild]

147. Here are some of the actions...

... that we have been taking to strengthen and encourage democracy in Ukraine: National Endowment for Democracy - Ukraine

Perhaps you would go through this list and point out to me which of these examples have been adopted by Russia?

[PosterChild]

143. Here is a list of the nefreious, shadowy, underhanded...

... actions being undertaken to undermine and subvert the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people:

National Endowment for Democracy - Ukraine

So which of these meddlesome activities to you find objectionable?

[rhett o rick]

153. If your point is that we should help them achieve Democracy, I would answer that we

will do more damage than good. We will kill thousands, maybe millions and they will still end up with a non-democratic government. We will take money from the lower classes and give it to the war profiteers.

We can not afford another war.

[PosterChild]

160. Take a look at the list of activities...

... that we have been engaged in - activities to strengthen, encourage, and promote democracy in the Ukraine - and let me know which ones you think are going to kill thousands, maybe millions.

Maybe the Human Rights Film Festival?

[rhett o rick]

164. Sorry if I misread your point. Maybe if you would simply state it outright I wouldnt have to guess.

[PosterChild]

170. I'll try to be more clear and strightforward in the future. (nt)

[rhett o rick]

261. Why not start now? What was your point? nm

[PosterChild]

303. My point is that...

... killing Vietnamese and Iraqis are not an examples of our activities aimed at "strengthening and encouraging democracy", particularly not in Ukraine or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Rather, the activates of the The National Endowment for Democracy are typical.

(Please take a look at the linked list if you have not already. It includes such activities as sponsoring a Human Rights Film Festival.)

As far as having a poor record when we meddle, you might want to ask the occupants of the former East Germany for their opinion on our record. Or the people of Poland. You may want to ask the people of South Korea, and of Taiwan. In fact, it's even possible that some of the folks in the former USSR might have something of a positive opinion. Over all, I think our "meddling" has been absolutely, positively a successful, progressive force for democracy in the world.

The post I was originally responding to claimed that Russia's domestic civil rights violations are unrelated to the issue of our involvement in strengthening and encouraging democracy and freedom in Ukraine. This is wrong. Civil rights are fundamental to democracy, and that's why we have been promoting a greater understanding and appreciation of civil liberty and civil society in Ukraine. Russia's long and miserable history of civil rights violations puts them on the wrong side of history.

An example of the Russian understanding of civil liberty comes from Vitaly Churkin, Russia's UN ambassador, who observes that problems began only after steps toward membership in the EU were postponed. "Why did this problem have to result in street demonstrations? Why were the demonstrations encouraged by people from the EU?"

In fact, the choice between the European Union and the Eurasian Union is a cultural choice between authentic, progressive democracy and a regressive authoritarianism that aggrandizes the state at the expense of the human rights, human dignity and justice. We have every right speak our truth to the world and give aid and comfort to those who want to follow a progressive path. And our record on that, while not perfect, hasn't been all that bad.

Churkin doesn't seem to know about or to understand "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" The Ukrainians do. Someone must have mentioned that to them.

[eridani]

317. The purpose of NED is to whore for the 1%. They loved Yanukovych as long as--

--he was negotiating with EU about going along with their austerity program--a vicious economic attack on the 99%.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22314-focus-a-shadow-us-foreign-policy

For NED and American neocons, Yanukovych's electoral legitimacy lasted only as long as he accepted European demands for new "trade agreements" and stern economic "reforms" required by the International Monetary Fund. When Yanukovych was negotiating those pacts, he won praise, but when he judged the price too high for Ukraine and opted for a more generous deal from Russia, he immediately became a target for "regime change."

[PosterChild]

341. Sure. And I suppose you think...

... the purpose of the National Endowment for the Arts is to corrupt American morals and further the "gay agenda". Its the same sort of paranoid, extremist logic.

Here are some of NEDs activities in Ukraine, referenced in the article you linked to: http://www.ned.org/fa/where-we-work/eurasia/ukraine

High on the list: human rights. Nowhere on the list: regime change.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/101686426#post20

[eridani]

342. They are solidly behind AUSTERITY. They were solidly behind Yankuvich when--

--he was negotiating for EU imposed austerity. National Endowment for the Arts has no foreign mission. Do you think that Greek-style austerity will be good for the Ukrainian 99%. Why?

[PosterChild]

345. You seem to think that...

... the Ukraine has been considering some sort of "business deal" where they look at the dollar amount and choose which vendor's bid they should go with. Not so.

The choice between the real EU (the European Union) and the fake EU (the Russian front Eurasian Union) is a cultural choice between two political and socio-economic visions: A choice between authentic western liberal democracy grounded in freedom, individual choice and respect for human rights and human dignity, vs. a sham democracy of authoritarian oligarchy and subservience within the decaying Russian empire.

Concerns about "austerity" vs. "free Gazprom" are short-term and superficial. The choice between independence and satrapy is foundational and enduring. The National Endowment for Democracy did a good deed in educating the Ukrainians in the fundamental value of Democracy, and made them aware of the gravity of the choice they faced. It has already made a huge difference for the Ukrainian people and will make a great deal of difference for human progress and peace in the world at large.

Solidarność, Citizen

[eridani]

346. Human progress is NOT austerity.

Fucking over the 99% is the purpose of austerity, and you seem to be buying it.

[PosterChild]

348. It's not Gazprom freebies either...

... it's independence, liberal democracy, and personal liberty - Which can be achieved through an alliance with the real EU, and isn't available, at any price, from the fake EU.

[eridani]

349. The only thing they get from EU austerity is economic destruction.

Real freedom must be freedom to get fucked over.

[PosterChild]

350. LOL, sure, just ask anyone in Poland....

[eridani]

351. Ask them in Greece while you are at it n/t

[PosterChild]

352. Ha - Greece didn't leave the EU...

... or the monetary union. And Greece's problems were all Greece's fault. They weren't fucked over by the EU - They auto-sodomized themselves.

[eridani]

353. Greece was indeed fucked over by EU

Austerity is always a fuckover, period. The Ukraine won't appreciate it either.

[sabrina 1]

148. Ssshhhhh, American Privilege!! We can do that then condemn it if we feel like it.

[Adrahil]

129. You are completely ignoring the fact that the democratically elected Parliament threw his ass out.

Yanukovich was a kleptocrat. I am 100% convinced that in addition to Putin's threats to economically attack Ukraine, he also offered to line Yanukovich's pockets. The revelations of the depth of his fleecing of the treasury is remarkable.

[PosterChild]

144. +100 (nt)

[sabrina 1]

149. How do you feel about US support, financially, for the Govt of Uganda, for Uzbekistan's dictator,

for Saudi Arabia as one of our closest allies? How about the invasion of Iraq? And the tragic mess that has created not just to Iraq but to the entire region? Should people who support dictators, who have allies who are dictators, be lecturing the world about 'democracy' or do you think the world might not feel too confident in their idea of 'democracy' as the Egyptian and Tunisian protesters pointed out, pointing to Iraq as the 'US idea of Democracy'?

[PosterChild]

154. My bet is...

...that the world is a lot more confident in our idea of democracy than in Russia's idea of it.

[sabrina 1]

163. Which parts of the world?

[PosterChild]

173. The Ukraine (nt)

[PosterChild]

78. He called it a "meme"....

... if he calls it a "meme" he must know the truth about what's going on.

[sibelian]

175. OMG EXACTLEEEEEEE

Because if a thing happens often enough for it to be a "meme" than obviously there must be something unwholesome and nebulously wrong with it...

[Igel]

84. They project.

Russia's still run by oligarchs.

The '90s oligarchs were party bosses that gained power, plus various other folk (often factory managers that became factory owners). They flaunted their wealth.

That's how they see the US.


Putin's oligarchs are under his thumb. He helps those who help him and he can bring the state to crush those who oppose him. They're still oligarchs, but on a state leash and they don't flaunt their wealth.

An oligarch breaks ranks? In short order he's up on charges, imprisoned by a kangaroo court, and his assets are suddenly state property. Lesson learned by others? Sure.

A lot think it would be neat if Obama could call Koch and say, "This needs to be done. Make it so." They'd also just be glad that nobody could run a serious campaign against their party. (The will to power is strong in some. Even if it is only power by proxy.) The citizenry may hurt, but they're not likely to be hurt bad and others they dislike will be hurt more. It's called negative altruism--I'll take a loss, but it'll be worth it to see you in agony, sucker!


The level of corruption was declining in the last year before Putin was first elected, and quickly grew for former levels and exceeded them. Russians are used to state corruption. You need some sort of strong code of personal honor, not public honor, or a code of public honor so draconian that people would live in terror of being corrupt and exposed. Russians mostly have a code of public honor, and even that's weak when it comes to imposing requirements on their own behavior. Everybody's corrupt--from the nurse at the doctor's office to the taxi driver to the president.

[sabrina 1]

100. Which country are you talking about? Uganda maybe, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan

And how does killing a million Iraqis, torturing them, going around to various countries and droning their citizens among other human rights abuses you are surely aware of assuming you were here when it all began, add spying on one's own citizens, jailing peaceful protesters, beating them sometimes nearly to death factor into the US defending democracy?

[sibelian]

137. Oh, you!

Stop taking away Pretzel's fun. He's here to wake us all up like the sheeple we are.

[sabrina 1]

176. I hate spoiling people's fun, but we Liberals can't seem to help jamming the 'works' with facts.

That's why they hate us, it just occurred to me. That old 'liberal bias' there have been so many complaints about.

[amandabeech]

156. Obama isn't perfect, but he's better than Bush.

We must continue to elect presidents and members of congress who will break from the Neocon/Cold War mentality and reestablish our moral credibility.

Meanwhile, I don't mind that Obama joins with other world leaders in condemning Putin's actions.

[sabrina 1]

188. I mind that hypocrisy in any form, especially when it is representing us. Had this country

held our own war criminals accountable for the tragedy of the war they lied us into, wars I should say, then we would have some credibility regarding the actions of other countries' leaders. There's no point in pointing fingers when they can be and ARE BEING pointed right back at you. It kind of weakens your position to have so much that can used against you.

Anyone who cares about this country understands that until we stop killing people around the word, and then dealing with our own Wall St and War Criminals, we have zero influence on situations like this other than the huge War Machine we seem to care more about, fund more than, our own people.

[7962]

247. Bush's war was idiotic, but a MILLION Iraqis were not killed. Not even close.

Let me be clear that I am NOT defending the war. It shouldve NEVER been started by Chen...Bush. But theres no need to make a stupid decision even worse by continuing to push these over-the-top "million dead" claims that have been proven false for years.
But none of them shouldve happened, I'm sure we would agree on that.
Thanks George!!

[sabrina 1]

269. 100,000? Is that better? You realize that we were told from the beginning, that 'we count bodies'

and that the estimates of the dead are only what could be CONFIRMED.

ONE DEATH was one too many, and one million may not be even close to the numbers, considering the ongoing deaths caused by the chemicals that were used, we don't count the deformed babies, many of whom are dying still.

To even argue over numbers is ghoulish. We also know that over 500,000 children died as a result of our sanctions even before we started dropping our WMDs on them. And the dying will go on for generations.

You dispute one million, I agree, I think it will be more than that. But don't expect numbers from Western collaborators, 'we don't do body counts' of all the brown people we view as, to quote Gen. Miller, 'DOGS'.

Sick to death of the killing, the torture and the sudden amnesia on the Left. Well some of us won't stop talking about those war crimes, or pointing out the hypocrisy of a nation that has so much blood on its hands, daring to lecture anyone else.

[polly7]

279. Imagine one child in the west killed by a foreign military and anyone daring to minimize

the horror of it, let alone hundreds of thousand - and yes, I agree with you - probably a million d/t sanctions and the direct and ongoing results of a bloody, horrific invasion. It's unthinkable for you and I and anyone who cares about humanity the world over ....... yet pooh pooh'd away by those who can't seem to place themselves in the shoes of all those whose lives have been completely ruined and are now left with extreme poverty, hopelessness, terror by religious fanatics, horrific deformity and disease and lives of squalor and destitution. Can you imagine accepting this in the west? It wouldn't be, and shouldn't be. Shame how little the lives of others some see as collateral damage and mistakes of the past are tried to be forgotten. The thing is, those 'mistakes' have families and generations of people who will grieve their loss and hate the cause of it, as well they should.

[sabrina 1]

286. No, I cannot imagine it for a minute. Or women being raped, or children being sodomized by foreign

troops. I know a certain amnesia appears to have settled in, but the victims of these horrific abuses are still traumatized, the surviving loved ones, the maimed men, women and children, the rape victims, some of whom were convinced to speak about the horrors in order to try to get some justice, even THAT is refused to them for 'national security reasons'.

I will not forget either the dismissive response from regarding whether the sanctions were worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children when she answered 'yes'.

I see a lot of talk about privilege here. America's dismissive attitude to all the deaths we have caused is the ULTIMATE example of privilege and according the logic I've seen regarding that, not one American can claim they are not privileged, so long as this is a national attitude, we can kill and maim and rape and pillage at will, and then forget about it.

I want a record somewhere that not ALL Americans dismiss the deaths of innocents and that SOME of us WANTED the criminals to be held accountable, to provide just a small amount of justice for the millions of victims we have created.

Thanks polly for not choosing amnesia now that the other team is out of office. I remember worrying years ago that we might become immune to the horror of what we were learning about our glorious, patriotic wars and promised myself I would never allow that to happen.

I remember Dahr Jamail's photos of the dead children, the photos from Fallujah and the witness descriptions of that horrible demonstration of, what Bush called it after he stole the second election, his 'political capital' which he stated he was 'going to use'. He did, people died and we claimed to be outraged as we should have been.

[polly7]

295. Thank 'you' Sabrina.

I can't tell you how many times that you and others have restored my hope that people do really care about others, and not just those they identify with in terms of where in the world they happened to be born.

[7962]

290. I agree, ALL were a waste in a war that shouldve never been started.

But some sources claim deaths from the most remote connection to the war. And we must also remember how civilians were used and are still used by terrorists as cover. And unfortunately, they will be killed in any conflict because of it. We see it with Hamas and Hizbullah. Hamas fires rockets into Israel from school yards. From neighborhoods. And if you do nothing because of civilians, you simply get more of the same.
As for sanctions, what else are we or the world to do? We have sanctions on N Korea & Iran. It causes hardship and likely in N Korea, many deaths. But what else are we to do? Withdraw completely from the world and let the dictators take over? Because without us, there is no one to stand in the way of a Putin or China. The EU couldnt/wouldnt even handle the Balkans in the 90's. And look what they're doing for the past several years. More to come, you'll see.

[eridani]

318. Only if you insist on counting only those killed violently

The one million figure includes all the babies dying from diarrhea because we blew up the water treatment plants, and the people who died of heart attacks and other treatable problems because we blew up the hospitals.

[2banon]

107. Maybe we should Invade/attack Uganda first?

See how well that goes? After all.. they have the "Kill the Gays" law, right? From there we can take on the rest of the 37 African countries with anti-homosexual laws on the books.. then lets take on Saudi Arabia for the same thing, I'm sure there are many other countries we can attack for all sorts of extremely oppressive reasons. That should revert Russia's anti-gay policies and bring them to their knees, no?

[newfie11]

10. That's exactly right

Russia isn't falling in line for the wealthy, or maybe not fast enough.
Yes we know who controls the media and the propaganda flows endlessly.
The enemy within is more worrisome than Russia.
Anyone wanting to start something with Russia is callng for Armageddon!

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. "35% of Russia's riches in the hands of 110 people"

110 rich Russians

With just 110 individuals holding 35% of the country's riches, Russia has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world (with the exception of some small Caribbean nations that have resident billionaires). There's a stark contrast between that and the world average, where billionaires hold around 1-2% of wealth.

Globally, for every US$170bn in household wealth there is on average 1 billionaire. In Russia, there is just US$11bn in household wealth for every billionaire in the country.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/09/worlds-wealthy-where-russia-rich-list

[NuclearDem]

241. Oh my God.

Russia is in the early stages of initiating a pogrom against its LGBT community and has invaded one of its neighbors, and all you've got is rah rah class warrior bullshit, despite the fact that Russia is one of the worst in terms of income inequality?

Unbelievable.

[MattSh]

23. Distorting Russia

The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm.

There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two different political or “expert” views on major developments; or to publish opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.

The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted Washington’s narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did was a “transition from communism to democracy” and thus in America’s best interests. This included his economic “shock therapy” and oligarchic looting of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of a “presidential” Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which gave rise to terrorists in Russia’s North Caucasus; rigging of his own re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.

http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia

[Bluenorthwest]

33. I read that piece, hard to take seriously his critique of 'press distortions' about Russia because

the piece is very long and does not even mention the anti gay laws nor the global reaction to that as the author preens over Sochi and other coverage. Talk about distortion, leaving out one of the major factors of the controversy around Sochi entirely is distortion and dishonesty.
This author manages to make one use of the word 'gay' as he snarks about the Presidential delegation "And what of Barack Obama’s decision to send only a low-level delegation, including retired gay athletes, to Sochi?" Oh how terrible, he sent gay people!
I know it is hard for the likes of this author to say 'gay' without sneering but to do so in an article taking others to task for distorting current events takes some serious stones.

And the comments after the piece are disturbing.

[Adrahil]

126. Holy Crap!

I don;t even know what to say to this Paean to Putin.

This is completely NUTS.

[Maedhros]

182. Paean to Putin?

Sorry, but the idea that the OP is some loving tribute to Putin is, quite frankly, ridiculously stupid.

[steve2470]

4. I'm sensing trolls myself nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. Same here. Most names I'm familiar with aren't advocating U.S.

Take any type of military action against Russia or in defense of Ukraine.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. they are either a kook or they are a troll - either way they need to be banned

[steve2470]

30. I agree

I really don't think any sane Democrat wants to get into a nuclear standoff with Russia.

[RKP5637]

52. That, would be pure insanity! Anyone can join DU, I always look at post count first. I see

some, I just wonder WTF.

[anneboleyn]

70. I agree. I have been here since 2004-ish(lurked for awhile) and these pro-war with Russia posts

are radically out of place on DU. Over the years I have read some crazy posts but NOTHING approaching the hypocrisy and insanity of these posts advocating the use of military force against Putin and Russia. Hell, even the hawks on Fox on Friday were high skeptical about that notion, acknowledging that such military intervention would put us in a very deep, very tricky, extraordinarily dangerous position -- not to mention that such a move reeks of US imperialism, and would put all kinds of nasty pressure on our allies.

[MADem]

64. They came for the Olympics, they stayed for the invasion of the Ukraine!!!

I hope MIRT gets on this and admins start doing their thing.

[freshwest]

187. Or people who haven't realized the Cold War is over. Sorry, Charlie, no war for you! n/t

[lostincalifornia]

7. If this was the sixties I wonder if they would be calling for our involvement in Vietnam

[reddread]

189. i dont wonder at all

of course they would.
freedom, democracy, tennis shoes.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. Fortunately, I don't think Obama would even dream of

having a military showdown with Russia over Ukraine. Obama has made foreign policy mistakes, to be sure, but he uses a lot more restraint than a lot of Presidents I can think of. This is also an election year, and any military action against Russia this year would cause a lot of upheaval in Congress. I think Democrats would suffer heavy losses.

This country is fed up with war. Most people want us to concentrate on making our own country better. Besides, even if we were able to deter Russia from invading Ukraine, would we make the situation any better? Look at our track record and you'll see what happens when America decides to 'save' a country.

[longship]

12. Only a loony toon would tangle with Russia.

JFK knew enough not to. Apparently Barack Obama knows the same. Too bad about the GOP nut cases.

[merrily]

19. People used to say the same thing about Afghanistan.

[DireStrike]

41. "used to"?

I guess some in the press and MIC have changed their opinion, but I think most people agree that it was a foolish thing.

Interesting how such a large percentage of people were able to be convinced otherwise, albeit for a very short time period.

[longship]

74. They still do.

As our experience there attests.

[Aerows]

138. Afghanistan isn't called the Graveyard of Empires

for no reason.

[Cartoonist]

27. Election year / War year

I oppose war. Your comments give me uncomfortable thoughts. Bush was re-elected, in large part, because America likes war and rewards presidents who wage it. Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, all of them re-elected. Previous history says a war would enhance the Dems prospects in 2014.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. You've a very simplistic view

and all of it highly inaccurate. "America" doesn't like war. The MIC loves war and most politicians are in the MIC's pocket via the NRA and the military. SOME politicians may "love" war because it appeals to their single-tooth constituency but "America," as in the American people, do NOT like war. The exception, of course, is when we're attacked, then Americans want justice/revenge, as in 911.

And to compare Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower & Johnson with Nixon is absurd and displays a complete lack of knowledge of American history. And, btw, Johnson wasn't "re-elected" because he chose not to run in 1968, ironically, because of the Viet Nam war.

You're seeing the MSM beat the war drums because it's good for their ratings. There's no political impetus on their part, only monetary.

[dixiegrrrrl]

56. Well put.

[RKP5637]

57. Well said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[MNBrewer]

63. America doesn't like war?

Were you not paying attention during the run up to George Bush's invasion of Iraq? The American people were almost salivating at the prospect of war. Those of us who opposed it were called traitors, "Fifth Column", and worse.

[Le Taz Hot]

65. Did you not catch this part of my post?

"The exception, of course, is when we're attacked, then Americans want justice/revenge, as in 911."

[MNBrewer]

76. Iraq didn't attack us!

[Le Taz Hot]

79. Um, yes, I'm aware of that.

So are most human beings that were alive then including the very people that promoted the war in Iraq. Not sure why you're being pedantic here.

[Cartoonist]

150. Let's argue about my innacuracies.

I can't find any.
Johnson was Prez in '64. He got re-elected to a full term. America does love war. We wage it all the time. We make blockbuster movies celebrating it, and gun sales show no sign of slowing down.

I wasn't comparing any of them to Nixon, I was just lumping them all together. Tell me which one wasn't a war leader? Some were good wars and some were bad. Either way, America didn't reject a single one of them for any reason.

"displays a complete lack of knowledge of American history"
Projecting somewhat, aren't we? You can disagree with me, but let's not be insulting.

[Le Taz Hot]

243. Johnson was "elected" president once.

He wasn't "re-elected." He was originally sworn in November 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated, so he ASSUMED the presidency. He ran for ELECTION in 1964, won, then refused to accept the nomination for RE-ELECTION in 1968.

I pretty much stop listening/reading when someone makes a blanket statement for 300+ million people. "We" don't wage anything "all the time." "We" don't make blockbuster movies celebrating war, certain film makers make them and SOME people go to see them.

With the possible exception of Nixon and Johnson, Washington, Lincoln and FDR had war thrust upon them.and we tried like hell to persuade the British to allow us independence. It was the British Parliament under King George III that refused. It was the British who fired first at Lexington and Concord. We DID NOT want to go to war but we were attacked and were forced to answer. The confederates fired first at Ft. Sumpter. That was under orders of Jefferson Davis, not Abraham Lincoln. In WWII Japanese bombed Peal Harbor. Again, WE weren't the aggressors. Kennedy inherited Viet Nam from Eisenhower and Johnson inherited Viet Nam from Kennedy. Nixon and Kissinger purposely kept the war going as a favor to the MIC and for political reasons (peace is at hand).

No rational person could possibly see the above wars/presidents/circumstances as being identical and certainly not placing us as the aggressors.

[Cartoonist]

302. LBJ was elected in 1960

He became Prez in 1963. He was RE-ELECTED in 1964. You sure are making a lot of BS over semantics. And let me repeat, I am not making any comparisons between the aforementioned presidents. All I am saying is that they all were leaders in time of war, and they were all popular with the American people. And when I say that, I don't mean EVERY American. There are always people on both sides of an argument. We also make anti-war movies. My original point was that going to war is not necessarily bad for an election.

[Le Taz Hot]

304. Um, no,

KENNEDY was elected in 1960. He won a close race against Nixon. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, Johnson, who up until then had been Kennedy's V.P., was sworn in as next in line in the succession. Johnson ran for the Presidency the first and only time in 1964 and easily won against Goldwater. Since Johnson had only completed one full term he was eligible to run for a second term in 1968 which he chose not to do.

Seriously, these things are easily researchable.

[Cartoonist]

305. Johnson was on the ballot as Veep

That counts as being elected. Seriously, these things are easily researchable.

I can't fathom why you are being such a penis about this. Oh, and did your face freeze that way.

[Le Taz Hot]

306. OK, I"m sorry.

I wasn't aware that I was dealing with an 8-year-old.

Have a nice day.

[Cartoonist]

332. That's OK

I imagine it's tough being a 5-year old and trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with someone older.
Really, what is your problem? You haven't proven me wrong on anything I've said, yet you continue with the insults. I started with a general comment and you've been riding my ass ever since. Time to get off.

[Skip Intro]

245. Doesn't war usually have a "rally around the president" effect, at least early on?

And during an election cycle (when are we not in an election cycle, right?) that effect could definitely sway things. At least in a presidential election. In an off-year election, I think it could be unpredictable. I have little doubt that an unscrupulous prez/admin would use military action in order to win re-election.

[Scootaloo]

9. Some DU'ers only oppose war when Republicans are in office

For a lot of people here, progressivism isn't a belief, it's a fashion accessory.

[Cha]

11. Or they could be mccain clones/trolls.. nobody I know of is advocating war with

Russia. That would be stupid.

[freshwest]

203. Especially not Obama, a Democratic president. Remember this?

It's more of that SSDD as it was back then.

[Cha]

208. Thanks for that, freshwest.. I was just thinking about it yesterday. EarlG Got It.. even if

some on here weren't savvy enough to get it.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. Scootaloo,

you should make this your sig line:

"For a lot of people here, progressivism isn't a belief, it's a fashion accessory."

[City Lights]

46. Well said, Scootaloo!

[L0oniX]

81. +1,000,000

[Igel]

89. Wasn't aware that pacificism was an integral part of progressivism.

Progressives are people. They have a lot of political tools and they redeploy them as necessary, usually without thinking much about them.

For many, intervention was appropriate in Libya, in Syria, in Bosnia, in Kosovo. They regret not intervening in Rwanda.

Telling South Africa where to get off was just fine. Iranian sanctions in the Bush II years were bad; under Obama they were good. It's not "what" but "who does it help?" and "who's doing it?" that often matters. Some wanted the Iraq war, for Bush II to fail; and they were eager to say that all (R) really want the US to crash because it'll make Obama look bad. They don't know they're doing it.

Some kinds of intervention are okay. If the right person is doing it--it's all ad hominem, sort of phallusy worship.

Go back to the '30s and you see the same kind of angst among Communists. The partition of Poland, Stalin's purges. Even the Alger Hiss mess. A lot of people had trouble coming to grips with some of those. Even in the early '80s anything anti-Soviet was just propaganda. The assumption was there was a false dichotomy: It was either/or. If the USSR was bad, then the US had to be good, and the US wasn't good. If the US was bad, then the USSR was good--and let's face it, many may have said that "Soviet =/= Russian" but in practice they meant the same thing.

[Scootaloo]

124. Pacifism and opposition to war are different things.

I've been seeing people who want to drop bombs at the drop of a hat. I don't know about you but that's not a progressive position - that's a neocon position, the logic that "well we have bombs, might as well use 'em!"

[Marr]

111. +1

[Aerows]

130. Boom

Well said, Scootaloo. You have the ability to lay it on the line very well, my friend.

[harun]

186. +1, sad but true.

[Cha]

214. "A fashion accessory"? Got any examples? Specifics? That's an ugly accusation for "a lot of people"

[mythology]

234. That's one way of looking at things.

Here's another:

Not all war is bad. Sometimes war can be fought for just reasons and using just means. It's incredibly simplistic and naive to say that all war is inherently evil. All but the most ardent of pacifists will use violence in their own self-defense. Likewise most pacifists I know would intervene if they saw somebody being attacked on the street.

Here's another:

If you unilaterally say that we will never use the military, it becomes a much less effective deterrent than if you say we will use the military under such conditions as demand it. There are some leaders who won't be deterred by a "pretty please don't do that". Assad turned over his chemical weapons pretty quickly when he realized there was the distinct possibility of actual military consequences. And yet we didn't actually have to go to war to get that result.

[King_Klonopin]

13. But W. looked into the eyes of Pootie-Poot and saw his soul.

Which is why I fly into a rage when I hear RW talking-heads and
McCain types criticizing Obama for not being "aggressive" enough
with Putin.

Too bad he didn't see that Putin is a fucking Mr Butch, swaggering,
nut-job just like he is. I wouldn't trust Putin on anything, but getting
involved in this militarily would be stupid.

End-Timer, Armageddon fans must be lovin' this shit.

[trusty elf]

34. ..........

[IMG][/IMG]

[freshwest]

217. Gotta be photoshopped! No way Putin would let Shrub drive, LOL. Great pic, thanks. n/t

[trusty elf]

226. Ha!

Glad you liked it!

[King_Klonopin]

288. Love the pretzel. Nice touch.

Cue the Talking Heads: "We're on a road to nowhere...."

[peace13]

14. More war!

Because we have been so good at it over the last fifteen years! I don't get it either. I even remember a time when peace talks were something to be proud of. Sadly, those days are gone.

[merrily]

17. When was the last time we actually had peace talks?

Lately, we don't even admit we're at war. Now, we don't so much negotiate a peace treaty as a withdrawal date. And we don't seem terribly eager for withdrawal, either.

[RC]

85. When Bill Clinton was leaving office.

[Cha]

206. What do you call the Peace Negotiations with Iran that President Obama initiated?

[peace13]

293. Forgive me Cha.

Thank you for the reminder. My bad!

[freshwest]

218. No, take heart, as they are back again:

We cannot afford to go to war. The world is facing too many challenges to engage in such destruction. World population and the industrial system is destroying the planet's ability to sustain life. War to resolve conflicts must be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[merrily]

15. You are not the first to say that DU has moved right.

Maybe it has. Maybe it was easier for Democratic loyalists to sound very leftist in 2002, when a Republican was in office and all the ills of the country could be blamed on him. I have also seen posters say that. With the bunch of New Democrats currently in DC, it is not very easy to be both a Democratic loyalist and a traditional Democrat.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Putin is right wing, though

There is huge inequality in Russia, and the billionaires are closely involved with him. There was huge corruption with the contracts for the Olympics. Homophobia is rampant there, and Putin's government introduced the bigoted laws. Putin is a militarist. He is, by any objective definition, right wing.

[merrily]

22. A zeal for military intervention and unitary executive are also rightist, so it's not that simple.

S

[Igel]

93. "unitary executive" isn't rightist.

It can be used that way.

When you see glee at Obama's EOs dealing with Dreamers, when you see him using his authority to have federal contracts increasing minimum wage levels, when you see him trying to use executive authority to improve environmental guidelines, that's all "unitary executive." Congressional (R) can pitch a fit, but if it's within the purview of the executive branch, it's within the President's purview. And Congressfolk have no say in the matter.

Same for a lot of Commander in chief kinds of things--something that (D) only recognized when it wasn't a political battle with Bush II. (Then again, same with a lot of executive decisions. We hated the Bush II unitary executive; we luv us some Obama-style unitary executive, and many call for even greater exertion of "unitary executive" powers that exceed what's allowed by law.)

The idea ultimately is in the constitution: All authority over the executive branch is invested with the President. There are three branches: Legislative, judicial, and executive. There's one executive branch, so it's unitary, all united under one President who has all the power (in that branch, and only in that branch).

[malaise]

18. Excellent post

Rec

[BainsBane]

25. There is a lot I don't understand around here

Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Like how people have decided Putin is some hero just because Snowden has taken up residence there. They are even pretending he's some leftist social reformer, which is nuts. Earlier someone posted comments suggesting the former Ukranian government had to be legitimate since it was elected and didn't bat an eye at the slaughter of 70 people in Kiev. How can the same people furious at Obama for being "authoritarian" fawn all over Putin ? Add that to all the people up in arms about the horror of having to read the term white privilege and insistent that women who object to GD being treated as a locker room are a radical fringe, I can't help but feel we're being trolled. The positions are anti-liberal and so ideologically inconsistent, it's hard to take them seriously.

To be clear, advocating military intervention in the Ukraine is another thing I don't understand.

[G_j]

31. wow

I haven't spent a tremendous amount of time here lately, but I certainly have not seen what you are talking about.

[brush]

37. There have been many "white privilege" posts lately, along with several about the Sports Illustrated

. . . swimsuit issue cover.

Here's a link from just yesterday on someone not liking the term "white privilege":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4567537


And yet another from Thursday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4577792


I don't have links from the booty book SI cover posts but there were many both for and against — thank God for them.

Yeah, the place is listing right alright.

[Heidi]

38. "Listing right" is a charitable description.

Good morning, brush:

[brush]

54. Hi, Heidi.

Glad to meet you. I'll keep an eye out for your posts.

[Le Taz Hot]

49. Neither has anyone else

re Putin.

[polly7]

35. Who's 'fawned' over Putin? Links? nt.

[RC]

80. There will be no links forth coming.

She thinks her force of will is all that is needed. Other DU'ers have other ideas.

[polly7]

83. I agree. It seems to be all about dividing DU'ers into whatever little

group worthy of derision and scorn she thinks will cause the most stir and outrage ........ as always.

[BainsBane]

157. There is always this one

and those by the same poster throughout the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014722551#post19

[polly7]

161. Do you have a point?

Or are you just blabbering on again for the point of seeing yourself in print?

[BainsBane]

162. You asked for links of people supporting Russia

Here is another: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024490324#post13

For this OP seen as hostile by many LGBT members. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024490324

[polly7]

165. Take your 'Russia' hate and shove it.

I'm concerned with the 130 million people of all genders, sexual orientation, race, class who make up 'Russia', and those of Crimea who have said weeks ago they fear the new Ukrainian 'leadership' and have actually called on Russia for help.

Did you hate the U.S. and the coalition of the willing for invading Iraq? If not, you're a hypocrite of the highest order. Were you one of those who called me a Saddam lover? I wouldn't doubt it at all. Of course, anyone who doesn't see things exactly your way is a 'Putin lover. What simplistic, pathetic bullshit.

And YOU are one of the worst for using LGBT members for your agenda of dividing this board into little hate groups you can control with the sole purpose of getting rid of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

You made more sense as your sock.

[polly7]

180. People are supporting those in 'Crimea' who've asked for help.

Pro-Russian Crimeans welcome Moscow's decision to send troops
Pro-Russian residents in Crimea's largest cities have shown their approval for Moscow's decision to send additional troops to the Ukrainian peninsula. But not everyone is happy that the crisis has taken this turn.

http://www.dw.de/image/0,,17467431_303,00.jpg

Cars flying Russian flags passed cheering people on the streets of Sevastopol and Simferopol on Saturday (01.03.2014) as pro-Russian Crimeans welcomed the unanimous decision by the Russian parliament to approve the use of the armed forces in Ukraine.
The news followed an earlier decision to move up a referendum on the status of the semi-autonomous region from May 25 to March 30, a decision that was greeted with enthusiasm by Crimea's Russian community, who make up about 60 percent of the population. The referendum could be the first step towards greater independence for the peninsula, and could lead to a possible secession from Ukraine or even a decision to join the Russian Federation.

Symbol of bravery

On Saturday, mass rallies were held in Crimea's two major cities. In Sevastopol, a crowd estimated at more than 5,000 people gathered in the main square, not far from the city's administration building.

Pro-Russian residents of Sevastopol wear the St. George's Ribbon

Many Crimeans have been waving Russian flags and wearing the St. George's Ribbon

They chanted "Rossiya, Rossiya!" and many wore the St. George's Ribbon, a well-known Russian symbol of military valor that is worn in remembrance of the victory over Nazi Germany. In 1941-1942, the seaport of Sevastopol was the scene of one of the fiercest battles of World War II. Russia's Black Sea Fleet is still stationed in the city today under a lease agreement with the Ukrainian government.


Rarely has the atmosphere here been so politically charged. In cafes, grocery stores and on the street, politics is all anyone talks about. Until very recently, it was completely different. "Normally, it's very, very quiet," said Galina, a small business owner. "We stayed silent during the protests in Kyiv, up until the new government decided to overturn the language law. That was the last straw. Suddenly, 30,000 people filled this square."


http://www.dw.de/pro-russian-crimeans-welcome-moscows-decision-to-send-troops/a-17467545



The Russian Stronghold in Ukraine Preparing to Fight the Revolution

Lawmakers and worried citizens in the pro-Russia Crimea consider their options

By Simon Shuster / Sevastopol @shustryFeb. 23, 2014525

A Ukrainian woman holds a Soviet flag during a rally in the industrial city of Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine, on Feb. 22, 2014

The busload of officers only began to feel safe when they entered the Crimean peninsula. Through the night on Friday, they drove the length of Ukraine from north to south, having abandoned the capital city of Kiev to the revolution. Along the way the protesters in several towns pelted their bus with eggs, rocks and, at one point, what looked to be blood before the retreating officers realized it was only ketchup. “People were screaming, cursing at us,” recalls one of the policemen, Vlad Roditelev.

Finally, on Saturday morning, the bus reached the refuge of Crimea, the only chunk of Ukraine where the revolution has failed to take hold. Connected to the mainland by two narrow passes, this huge peninsula on the Black Sea has long been a land apart, an island of Russian nationalism in a nation drifting toward Europe. One of its biggest cities, Sevastopol, is home to a Russian naval base that houses around 25,000 troops, and most Crimean residents identify themselves as Russians, not Ukrainians.

So when the forces of the revolution took over the national parliament on Friday, pledging to rid Ukraine of Russian influence and integrate with Europe, the people of Crimea panicked. Some began to form militias, others sent distress calls to the Kremlin. And if the officers of the Berkut riot police are now despised throughout the rest of the country for killing dozens of protesters in Kiev this week, they were welcomed in Crimea as heroes.

For Ukraine’s revolutionary leaders, that presents an urgent problem. In a matter of days, their sympathizers managed to seize nearly the entire country, including some of the most staunchly pro-Russian regions of eastern Ukraine. But they have made barely any headway on the Crimean peninsula. On the contrary, the revolution has given the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea their best chance ever to break away from Kiev’s rule and come back under the control of Russia. “An opportunity like this has never come along,” says Tatyana Yermakova, the head of the Russian Community of Sevastopol, a civil-society group in Crimea.


Read more: Crimea, Russian Stronghold in Ukraine, Is Ready to Fight Revolution | TIME.com http://world.time.com/2014/02/23/the-russian-stronghold-in-ukraine-preparing-to-fight-the-revolution/#ixzz2upQsd8u7

http://world.time.com/2014/02/23/the-russian-stronghold-in-ukraine-preparing-to-fight-the-revolution/
Posted by polly7 | Sun Mar 2, 2014, 11:35 AM (1 replies)
Thank you!!!

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5311cfa7/turbine/lat-crimearussianflags-wre0015647375-20140301/600
Pro-Russia demonstrators wave the colors of Russian military valor at an anti-American rally in Simferopol, in the Crimea region of Ukraine. The sign says, "We will free Ukraine from American occupation." (Sean Gallup, Getty Images / March 1, 2014)

By Sergei L. Loiko
March 1, 2014, 4:36 a.m.

KIEV, Ukraine -- Crimea's new pro-Moscow premier, Sergei Aksenov, moved the date of the peninsula's status referendum to March 30.
On Thursday, the Crimean parliament, which appointed Aksenov, had called for a referendum on May 25, the date also set for the urgent presidential election in Ukraine.

“In connection with a necessity we decided to speed up the holding of the referendum on the stauts of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea,” Aksenov said Saturday in Simferopol at a new government session, the UNIAN information agency reported.

Earlier that day, Aksenov, head of the nationalist Russian Unity organization, appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin “to render assistance in securing peace and tranquility on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea," UNIAN reported.


http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-crimea-referendum-date-20140301,0,2305350.story#ixzz2upSDz443

Cue the "You just love Pootie".

[BainsBane]

196. Well, thank goodness we have Putin to liberate Crimea by the use of military force

You've answered your own question about who defends Putin.

We were told Iraqis greeted Americans as liberators too. Looked how that turned out. It's interesting to see your opposition isn't to military use of force in general but rather when the US does it.

[polly7]

199. 'You were told the Iraqis greeted the Americans as liberators.'

And believed it, obviously.

Billions around the world weren't that gullible or stupid. So, speak for yourself.

[BainsBane]

204. I opposed the war from before it started and throughout

While you support Putin's war from the beginning. The clear point is that you have provided evidence for the very point you insisted didn't exist, support for Putin. I thank you for that.
War good, killing good, except when Americans do it. Gotcha.

[polly7]

213. Nah ......... sorry. I hate war anywhere, by any one.

I also hate to see a people who've asked for help left defenseless.

Now invent some other bullshit for your pity party.

[BainsBane]

230. Asked for help?

So is your argument that the invasion of Crimea is entirely unrelated to the ouster of the pro-Russian government in Kiev? And if they ask for help from the West? What then? Would that make a US invasion legitimate?

Lots of Syrians asked for help too. You didn't support intervention there. Of course, in fairness Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of them, so there are fewer who can ask now.

[polly7]

233. The Crimeans identify as Russian.

Why would they ask for help from the West?

WTF does Syria have to do with your claim that those who see their wishes as every bit as important as those who see themselves as Ukrainians are Putin lovers?

Talk about desperation.

[BainsBane]

246. Trying to find a grain of ideological consistency

You claimed you support Russian intervention because Crimeans asked for help. I asked what if the Ukranians ask for help. Would that make US or European intervention justified?

The question about the Syria is because they too asked for help--they have pleaded and begged for help. Of course they don't identity as Russians. They are being slaughtered. Apparently ethnic identification is for you a more legitimate grounds for foreign intervention than the mass slaughter of a population. I'm guessing your going to keep up the pretense that the invasion of Crimea is entirely unrelated to events in Kiev, like the pro-Russian government's murder of 70 protesters and subsequent ouster from power.

The only thing I can see that justifies your completely different responses to the two military situations is that you like Russia and Putin and do not like the US and Obama.

Continually insulting people doesn't make you sound any more rational, Polly. It only shows how little thought you put into your positions on issues.

[polly7]

248. Desperate and pathetic.

"The only thing I can see that justifies your completely different responses to the two military situations is that you like Russia and Putin and do not like the US and Obama." - and you are completely full of shit. Many of my family live in the U.S., I love the U.S. as a neighbour and friend. I see nothing redeeming about Putin, but I care about the people of Russia as I do people from every area of the world. You however, seem to hate anyone who sees more than a black and white view of the world and people outside of those you don't need to care about.

Spreading hate and discord wherever and whenever possible seems to be your specialty.

Are you following everyone around who sees a more complex situation re Crimea and their fear of the new Ukrainian 'leaders', or is it just me?

Not that it's a big deal, just wondering how far your hypocrisy goes and if you're brave enough to do it to anyone else.

[BainsBane]

262. That makes clear you can't defend your argument

and clear inconsistency between your support of military intervention from Putin but not others. I did not follow you anywhere. I never respond to any of your posts absent provocation because there is no point. As usual, you made negative comments about me and insisted I couldn't provide links. Not only did I provide several, I provided quotes by you, while yourself supplied more, contradicting your earlier insistence that no such positions exist. Clearly you resent the fact that I question your argument and point out inconsistencies. Calling me hypocritical is choice given the content of your argument. It is pure projection, which you do frequently. I won't pursue the content of your argument because you've made clear you can't defend it, which is why you again turn to personal insults. You have nothing else.

Next time, resist the urge to tangle with me because you clearly can't handle a discussion with someone who disagrees with you.

[polly7]

277. Don't 'tangle with you'?

BainsBane, you give yourself faaaaaar too much credit. And it's hilarious.

[pacalo]

289. *snork*

She means bizness, polly -- she's making lists!1!

These are just from one thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4593907

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4594331

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4592537

...which led me over to this thread.

[polly7]

291. Thank you pacalo.

Interesting to see how invested some are in their agenda. Don't follow black and white, us vs. them thinking and you're a Hussein Qaddafi Chavez-ok, that one was true Putin lover who needs to be purged from her space.

Love your graphics!

[BainsBane]

307. That was in directly response to people demanding links

Which you would know if you bothered to read.

[pacalo]

314. And you were too happy to step up to the plate -- on several threads.

Without Meta, it must be a dog's life waiting for these golden opportunities to call out long-time DUers.

Please proceed.

[BainsBane]

310. Breaking News

Russia hasn't been communist in two decades. I realize keeping up with current events can be challenging.

[pacalo]

315. So what's with the McCarthyesque lists you're eagerly supplying?

[BainsBane]

323. Reality clearly makes no difference to you

so I won't bother. I'll leave you to your campaign in defense of corporate media conglomerates, like the one that owns Sports Illustrated, as every true socialist concerns herself with. Viva Time Warner!

[pacalo]

333. Talking about the untruthful OP you wrote about SI not ever 'honoring women' on their covers?

[BainsBane]

336. Yes, I have no doubt you think an average of one cover a year

is all women deserve. The fact you always turn to personal attacks only highlights how little you have to say. By all means, continue your support for the invasion of Crimea by an authoritarian homophobe you want to believe is a socialist crusader. Standing up for power against social justice takes real courage. No one could accuse you of being anything but consistent.

[pacalo]

337. Since you're providing links about DUers, show me where I've supported Putin's invasion of Crimea.

[BainsBane]

338. Am I in error?

Are you saying that your post above about my supposedly being anti-communist and a McCarthyite was entirely unrelated to the subject matter and a result of nothing but personal animus? Should we then conclude that social justice and what is politically right mean so little to you that you quickly abandon them in favor of sticking the knife into a complete stranger you have decided is an enemy?

I'm dying to hear when Putin reimplemented socialist reforms. Why don't you tell us all about it? Or did you forget this isn't 1982?

[pacalo]

339. Yes -- as usual.

Your continuous empty assumptions made about others is astounding to begin with, so when I see someone like you making lists about DUers, it only highlights your bad intentions & I spoke up.

McCarthy kept lists of 'commies' to ruin other Americans' lives & livelihoods. On a discussion site, lists could be used to stir up trouble.

[BainsBane]

340. Are you denouncing the others who provided links when asked?

Or I am somehow special? I assume that means you think it inappropriate for people to demand links, since any response will necessarily be in bad faith?

I find that people who assume others act with malevolent intentions are often projecting, since they simply can't imagine another motivation. That would certainly be in keeping with your interaction with me, and the links you yourself have posted in the past, the only purpose for which seems to be expressing personal hostility that for some bizarre reason you think actually matters. People demanded links, and I provided them. Of course you haven't denounced anyone else who provided links. I seriously doubt you care about that. Is it nothing more than a transparent justification for what matters most to you: cultivating enmity. Links are not necessary to stir up trouble. You are managing perfectly well without them.

Edit: I looked for responses to others who provide links. You have not denounced them. As usual, you rely on empty pretext. This is getting old and entirely predictable.

There are no "commies" in this discussion. Russia hasn't been communist for more than 20 years. Perhaps if you spent more time thinking about issues of substance rather than using strangers as targets for your own frustrations in life, you could write something relevant to the current millennium.

You clearly get some enjoyment out of this junior high-school mean girl game. I find it boring and a waste of energy. I much prefer to devote my energy to something that actually matters.

[Puglover]

296. Oh great. I just

spewed coffee all over my monitor. Thanks a lot Polly.

[BainsBane]

308. Clearly you don't know me

So I will make something very clear. If you have an issue with me, address me directly.

[Puglover]

321. Clearly I know you

as much as I ever wish to know you.

And you know what you can do with your directive.

[BainsBane]

326. Perhaps it's you I don't know

and I apologize if I mistakenly thought there was some issue of substance that mattered to you, as opposed to cultivating personal animosities toward strangers.

[polly7]

309. I'm sorry.

[Aerows]

134. I can't even begin

to figure out where that particular assertion came from. I'm torn between the compost heap and perhaps having something really bad for dinner that spat that out.

[polly7]

215. LOL.

I've been called 'Saddam's lover', some said I wanted to have his children!, as well as Gaddafi's .... good lord, I'd have a houseful of little mouths to feed with all those little rascals.

[Le Taz Hot]

47. NOBODY on this board has EVER said

"Putin is a hero." You're using this issue as an excuse to push your personal agenda against Snowden. You are EXACTLYT the right-wing "Democrat" the OP is talking about.

[BainsBane]

120. LOL

My personal agenda against Snowden.
Now that would be an example of the absurd reduction of everything issue into personalities.
In may shock you to learn I do not think much about Snowden either way. What I care about is NSA surveillance of American citizens. Your post, however, is a prefect example of why discussions on these issues are reduced to their least important elements.

[hrmjustin]

152. She has no personal agenda with Snowden.

[Marr]

112. Links or withdraw that claim, please. /nt

[BainsBane]

141. Here is one

Not the one I saw last night that I referenced. I'm still looking for that, but this is similar in its defense of Putin. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024589052#post3

[Autumn]

207. Wait a minute. An OP shocked at people supporting a military strike is pro Putin????

Did you post the wrong link? Cause there is no fucking way in hell one can say that OP is pro Putin.

[BainsBane]

228. The link is not to the OP. It is to post 3.

[Autumn]

229. A newbie

Builderbergs

[BainsBane]

146. Another

The use of RT, funded by the Russian govt, is the common source for defending Putin. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024590563

[BainsBane]

151. Then the absurd contention that Russian intervention is an act of Ukranian self-determination

Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Only not bothering to mention the Russian military is currently self-determining Crimea.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4588730

[BainsBane]

158. "The Russia bashing has backfired"

Now in full disclosure I don't know if that poster's concern is defense of Russia or some issue with the content or strategy of LGBT campaigns for equal rights.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024490324

[Marr]

205. This is about what I expected, after your bizarre linkage to Snowden above.

I don't see anyone in those threads "fawning over Putin" or describing him as a "hero".

More wasted time, more bullshit smears.

[Autumn]

210. There's a serious reading comprehension problem there.

2 links to posts against US intervention against Russia and a link to a story about Russians supporting Putin.

[BainsBane]

249. More links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024591770#post86

[Marr]

252. I got to the third and decided to stop wasting my time.

You've got jack shit. Post some of the "fawning" or someone referring to Putin as a "hero" or admit your post was bullshit. And don't waste any more of my time with phony citations.

[BainsBane]

256. Here's another you can ignore.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024593627#post1

Next time don't ask for links when it's obvious you don't want to see them.

[Marr]

259. Hey-- you found one!

Congratulations on finding one extreme position that, frankly, reads more like a troll post.

[BainsBane]

264. Which was my original point

There are a number of others, even in this subhtread, that you have refused to read. Some aren't even links. One person supplied them willingly.

[Marr]

273. No, there weren't-- I read the others and they were simply not what you claimed them to be. /nt

[Aerows]

133. Oh sure

I've seen this about as often as I've seen people calling Bush a leftist social reformer. Anywhere. Not even just DU.

[rhett o rick]

167. "Like how people have decided Putin is some hero just because Snowden has taken up residence there."

I hope you have a link.

[BainsBane]

168. I've provided several

in this subthread. Look.

[rhett o rick]

258. Your claim that "people have decided Putin is some hero" is unfounded.

Your threads do not indicate your claim.

[BainsBane]

311. There are at least two

One presents him as defender of the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent; and another describes the entire G-7 as fascists in contrast to Putin.
You cannot have looked at all the links. Then we have a number of people going out of their way to justify military intervention in Crimea, and you can't claim you didn't see all the defenses of Putin after he gave asylum to Snowden.

As far as I can figure, the reasoning seems to work like this:

NSA surveillance is bad

Snowden revealed NSA spying

Greenwald reported NSA spying (So did Bart Gellman, but no one worries about him)

Therefore Snowden and Greenwald are perfect. (That issue has become unseverable from the NSA surveillance). Battles about NSA surveillance were quickly reduced to personality fights about whether or not their characters were flawed or perfect, as though that has anything to do with the NSA.

Putin gave asylum to Snowden.

Therefore criticizing Russia is authoritarian and even (as a graphic in this subthread alleges) red baiting, for a view than means aligning with the 1 percent over the 99 percent.

(Of course Russia hasn't been communist in twenty years, but that seems to have been forgotten. Putin also acts in authoritarian ways toward the political opposition and LGBT citizens.) None of that, for a few, compares to the tyranny of Obama and the NSA. Or at least they can't be bothered to think about it.

Hence allegations that those who criticize Russia have a "agenda against Snowden" (see above in this subthread) are authoritarian or anti-communist (again, above in this subhtread). Additionally, supporters of the President and the Democratic party are labeled "authoritarians," in contrast to supporters of Russia and its invasion of Crimea.

My position is, NSA surveillance is bad. Don't give a fuck about Snowden or Greenwald as personalities.
Military intervention is bad, and that Russian forces do it doesn't make it good.

[Aerows]

227. Being critical of the NSA = being a worshipper of Snowden

= being a worshipper of Putin.

All of it really means: "You don't love Obama enough! You've never loved him!" Because somehow criticism of things that would rightly piss people off under anyone else is supposed to be inviolate under Obama.

If this continues apace, this place may as well be called Obama Underground, as though there will never be another President ever ever ever again.

[rhett o rick]

260. What kind of strange motive to say that people here think Putin is a hero?

Are they going to that lengths to defend Pres Obama? I am seriously befuddled.

[Aerows]

292. If you haven't noticed

some people will go to lengths that are so far out of the realm of reality that I actually feel sorry for them. Some of the contortions I've seen border on mental illness.

[rhett o rick]

299. Bullies love message boards. nm

[Aerows]

300. They do

and we have an utter infestation of them here on DU. I have no idea what to do to change that. I'm even hosting in GD, and I have absolutely no power whatsoever to stop the bullying, I've just become a bigger target of it.

I've posted about it in ATA. No response. I guess bullying is acceptable here. :throws up hands:

[BainsBane]

313. A bully?

Yes, daring to disagree with you and speak in general terms about observations of posts is bullying. As opposed to a dozen people gather together to talk shit about a poster. That isn't bullying. Accusing someone who posts something one doesn't agree with as "mentally ill" isn't bullying. Rather, the heresy of posting something that doesn't meet your approval, that is bullying. Please tell me the committee to which I should send my posts in advance to have them approved so as to not be guilty of "bullying." Do you even think about what you write?

Perhaps it might occur to you that if someone makes a general comment not directed at you, you need not take it personally. I frankly find it bizarre that you and some others here see their honor as linked to every single poster on DU, yet somehow have no problem excluding me from that collective ethos.

[rhett o rick]

316. I said "bullies love message boards". It wasnt directed to you nor aimed at you.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. I am sure you've seen the ridicule and mocking used here. And when called on it, those that do it always respond that the person "deserved" it. That's exactly what a bully would say. Mocking and ridicule are never appropriate.

[BainsBane]

325. It's just coincidental

That it's in response to a post agreeing with you and calling me mentally ill for suggesting anyone in DU supports Putin. Gotcha

I agree that mocking and ridicule are never appropriate yet there is plenty of it, including in this subthread. I also think using mental illness as an insult is particular unconscionable, since it serves to further stigmatize already highly stigmatized illnesses that affect millions if not billions of people around the world.

[rhett o rick]

328. I agree with your statement about mental illness and made a similar comment in

another thread. I did not make the comment and did not think it was addressed toward you. I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. I do not think you are either a bully or mentally ill.

[BainsBane]

329. And I apologize for misunderstanding the intent of your post

[rhett o rick]

331. No Prob. Some times I get a bit random.

[BainsBane]

312. Accusing me of being mentally ill for disagreeing

is low. Additionally, it contributes to the further stigmatization of mental illness, which is unconscionable.

Perhaps you might consider that a general post such as mine might not be directed at your personally. That you take it so is fucking bizarre. Links support the conclusions I came to. People say, well that poster only has so many posts. That isn't the point. I saw it and it influenced what I wrote. It wasn't meant to be about you, your precious Snowden, Greenwald or whatever cult of personality you're focused on today.

[freshwest]

219. Thanks. I want an orderly process and it looks like the international community will step up now:

Ukraine parliament calls for international monitors and for necessary aid to ensure the safety of it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014743130

[Maedhros]

301. Some questionable statements:

Like how people have decided Putin is some hero just because Snowden has taken up residence there.

I have never seen anyone post this, ever. Do you have an example?

They are even pretending he's some leftist social reformer, which is nuts.

I have never seen anyone post this, ever. Do you have an example?

Earlier someone posted comments suggesting the former Ukranian government had to be legitimate since it was elected and didn't bat an eye at the slaughter of 70 people in Kiev.

I'm not following you here. Elected governments are generally considered legitimate, but that doesn't imply that they cannot also be guilty of atrocities (cf. the United States and our invasion of Iraq). The bit about the slaughter in Kiev confuses me: are you angry because people didn't accept this slaughter as justification for the Russian intervention? Or is it because you interpret it as indifference toward the excesses of the deposed Ukrainian government? Seems a bit non sequitur in relation to the legitimacy question.

How can the same people furious at Obama for being "authoritarian" fawn all over Putin ?

I haven't seen anyone "fawn over Putin" - examples? Also, most of us who are pissed off at Authoritarians do not apply that term to Obama but to those that attack posters for criticizing the NSA.

Add that to all the people up in arms about the horror of having to read the term white privilege and insistent that women who object to GD being treated as a locker room are a radical fringe, I can't help but feel we're being trolled.

I'm with you on the white privilege thing, but chalk up that argument to semantics.

[iamthebandfanman]

26. sure was more outrage over syria..

surely theres no racial/ethnic bias going on..



I think Russia needs punishment.. and we can do that economically and politically.. theres no need for conventional warfare with Russia.

I also think folks need to spend less time analyzing 'why' putin is doing something and more time acting on a swift consequence for doing whats being done.
who cares what or how putin thinks? hes a tyrant that needs to be put in check. the world isn't his psychiatrist ..

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. yes that is about the kookiest thing I EVER heard in my life. I think it is only few loony toonies

here on DU saying that. Those kooks really shouldn't be forming opinions or making any decisions about anything. If it is necessary to explain what is wrong with that idea they have no right to have opinions. Maybe it is a REALLY sick joke?

[MarianJack]

32. I agree!

My son will be 14 at the end of this month. There is no way from here to Hell and back I want to see him get out of high school, put on a uniform and die...for the fucking Ukraine!!!

PEACE! (and I mean it!).

[TBF]

36. I protested against our involvement in El Salvador

when I was a college student in the 80s. I look at Venezuela now and it takes me back ...

Same thing in Ukraine. Yes, Putin is a jackass, but who do we think is funding the fascists in the west?

I am disgusted when I read this war-mongering so you are definitely not alone.

[Igel]

96. What foreign government is funding the Republicans?

The Greens?

The Democrats?

Perhaps most of the funding is domestic and people, even if they aren't Americans, can actually choose for themselves?

(Seriously. The amount of funding necessary to have a political party isn't great. Bus and train tickets aren't expensive. And molotov cocktails? Please. Some empty vodka bottles and some gasoline. It's like asking what foreign government backed Chavez because surely Venezolanos couldn't have come close to supporting him. And the Western paternalism that drips in many posts is the life-blood of western imperialism and colonialism. The lesser peoples surely can't think or act for themselves, the little dears. Some civilized, educated Westerner must be behind them, doing the thinking for them.)

[TBF]

179. They don't try to hide it -

They don't really try to hide it: there's $5m in the 2014 US federal budget for funding opposition activities inside Venezuela, and this is almost certainly the tip of the iceberg – adding to the hundreds of millions of dollars of overt support over the past 15 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/venezuela-protests-us-support-regime-change-mistake

[DCBob]

39. Dont fret it.. President Obama isnt listening to warmongers here or anywhere else.

[valerief]

40. Is Billy Kristol posting on DU again? I thought we tombstoned him. nt

[freshwest]

220. LOL. Even Bill Maher called that neo-con out on his show this past week. n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

42. well, our team is in the WH, now if Romney was in

the protesters would already be on the way.

[Saboburns]

43. Too many people here now want to be popular, look smart. Argue.

Back in the Day, this place helped change my thinking. It's not too far-fetched to say this site made me a Liberal, re-shaped how I looked at the world. And for that I am Forever Grateful.

Not so much any more.

I dunno, to me, this place used to be like Smithsonian Magazine, now more like People.

[Fumesucker]

50. Lowest common denominator

A forum as big as this will descend to that point, it's all but inevitable really.

[Blue_Adept]

59. There's always been this element.

It's rose colored glasses in a lot of ways. There's plenty of truth to it as well, as more "covert" types with time to kill and an enjoyment of messing with people exists, but there's never been a fully unified DU on any front.

[Curmudgeoness]

155. When you start to get down about the direction DU seems to be going,

do what I do......focus on how many people are defending the principles that we believe in, and know that there are more of us then there are the malcontents.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. I clearly oppose US military intervention in Ukraine, despite my strong feelings on the subject.

In the same vein though, I can't believe I am reading people on DU supporting imperialism.

[jimlup]

51. Yeah Thanks!

I feel much the same way.

It is time for patient and careful calculation but certainly not a time to ask irrationally calling for military force. Calling for military force now is irrational and counterproductive.

I would also add that it is very much a typical Republican knee jerk reaction to these types of situations.

[SmittynMo]

53. I oppose any war of any kind

unless it's on our own soil. We are not the world's police. I don't know when it started, but it has to stop. The sad part is I don't see it happening anytime soon. I'm pretty sure Obama has a pretty good start in heading in that direction though. He had many opportunities to start a war, most recently being in Syria. He backed down. I commend him for that. I'm pretty sure he'll leave Russia/Ukraine alone. God helps us all if we let the far right teabaggers take control again.

[Igel]

97. Since there's nothing like going to extremes for no good reason ...

Did you applaud Clinton's restraint in not intervening in Rwanda?

And denigrate him for getting involved in Bosnia.

(As an aside, Putin's just slightly rewritten the Kosovar play-book. It was a best seller in some left-of-center publications. And the Putin revision still is.)

[TRoN33]

55. Agreed!

Stay strong. I never want Obama to intervene by military force, hell, not even WMD bullshit. These same people who screams at Obama to use military force and start a nuclear war with Russia, even some says Ukraine also, are the same people who hates Obama so much.

They are war-mongering hypocrites. Obama's expression and reaction was priceless when heckler scream at Obama for when will he start the nuclear war. He got much greater common sense than far right neocons combined. That is why we elected him and sanity will always prevail. Imagine if Mitt Romney is our President, whom once called Russia #1 geopolitical foe, have the power of military in his hands? He'd go to war with Syria, Iran, North Korea, and even Russia. He's too impulsive and would have horrible advisors in his administration.

[bobduca]

60. Call out the war mongers

[bigwillq]

61. It's a message board. No reason to take it so seriously.

At the end of the day: So what?

[Soylent Brice]

62. here lies DU...

...or at least its founding principles.

[zeemike]

67. K&R...I feel the same way

But the posters I most admire here have not changed...at least most of them...but many of them no longer post much.

[Ed Suspicious]

71. We opened the tent to catch those who seem like "reasonable republicans" running from the tea wake.

I'm not shocked that republicans act like republicans even when they put a D after their name. We need to redefine who can enter the tent.

[emsimon33]

72. I agree--on DU cooler heads should prevail--War is not the answer--never is

[stevenleser]

77. There was one OP advocating that by one person. There is not "all these posts"

And that one person was roundly criticized.

[redqueen]

82. K&R

Thank you for this.

[Avalux]

86. There have always been trolls. It's just that now, their bullshit isn't removed.

I was a moderator for a long time and when I think about the 'rules'; what was allowed to stand back then compared to this current incarnation of DU, it's really sad.

I still read DU but have given up my posting except for a reply every now and then.

[knitter4democracy]

87. Amen to that! I remember, and I stand with you.

We always had a safe place here, those of us who wanted peace, and now I'm seeing all kinds of imperialist craziness today when the idea of war with Russia makes my blood run cold. They have nukes, and they have generals who want to use them. They have been an ally for years, and now we're turning on them when we haven't even tried diplomacy yet. They might still back down, there might still be a way, and we have people talking about bombing them? Horrible.

[rrneck]

88. It seems that

progressives are reluctant to admit, even to themsleves, that they are perfectly willing to unload on others if it serves their purposes.

[Auntie Bush]

90. Seems like the neo-conservatives have invaded DU.

[woo me with science]

95. More than "seems."

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

[stevenleser]

102. Where? One poster has done that. ONE. nt

[Rex]

159. So Russia's unprovoked war of aggression is OK?

nt.

[stevenleser]

263. I think you are responding to the wrong post. nt

[freshwest]

212. Where was that? I only saw one thread going nutso about how Putin was going to take over Europe.

That ain't gonna happen, and certainly not because of bellicose pundits in the USA. Have they been going around the bend on FNN?

I only ask that of you since you do put yourself out to try to talk sense into them. Too many nations in that region are now related by trade and agreements, they are not going to repeat history.

It's not WW2, FFS, nor is this WW3 on our doorstep. I didn't even bother to comment on the one thread I saw like that, late last night (or early this morning) and saw all the posters agreeing on it. I figured they'd cool off by morning.

Just give me a link so I can get a clue to this insanity being discussed here.

[stevenleser]

265. Brentwil has been the only person advocating military force. I don't consider it a call out

because he has penned at least three OPs calling for military force against Russia in Ukraine. I doubt he is ashamed of that position after three OPs.

[freshwest]

284. Three threads, wow. Must really believe in that. I'll do a search and see what his angle in. But...

I'm still against it and confident Obama won't be egged into such a thing by anyone.

Thanks for giving me a lead to what started this thread. It's already received 353 Recs and I haven't seen such unanimity on DU in a long time.

Oh, and to The Sexiest Man Alive!

[Iliyah]

171. They have been here for quite awhile

[Zorra]

91. "Holy Fuck Me Harder!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807

[JackHughes]

92. Keeping two thoughts in our heads

Putin is a ruthless prick and the Crimea is traditionally and culturally Russian.

[laundry_queen]

193. So France should invade Canada because Quebec?

That seems to be the crux of the argument pushed by those that want military intervention.

[freshwest]

223. Military intervention by who? Using that standard, do you mean Russia? I thought we are arguing

against American intervention?

[laundry_queen]

244. I am.

I was just addressing the ridiculous point some people are making that it's totally understandable Russian troops are in the Crimean peninsula because there are ethnic Russians there. My reply is so what? They STILL shouldn't be there, they are STILL invading a sovereign nation. It would be just like as if France stationed a shit pile of troops in Quebec and everyone saying, "well, it's okay because Quebec is mostly ethnic French and a good portion of the population wants to be a part of France." Um, STILL NOT OKAY. If a particular area of a country wants to separate, then they need to make it happen in a democratic fashion. Not by asking the country of their origin to come in an invade their current country.

KWIM? Does that make sense? The analogy works because a large part of Quebec is no longer 100% ethnic French. Not all of Crimea is 100% ethnic Russian...there are ethnic Ukrainians that live there too.

Let me make it clear: I'm 100% against Russia invading anyone. I'm 100% against any kind of military action on the part of the west to stop them from doing so. I don't know what the answer is.

FWIW, I'm of Ukrainian decent, and likely have some distant relatives involved in this, so I am a bit more upset about it than I normally would be when discussion other countries. But I'm totally against any American intervention. It would be a clusterfuck of ginormous proportions.

[freshwest]

250. Well, I put my foot in it the other day with this post, in which I argued Crimea could leave, based

on the legal standing of that region per Wikipedia, as it seems to be an open question and maybe doesn't belong to either side historically when you go way, way back as this piece does.

Autonomous Republic of Crimea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

That's the original page, if they update it, there may some other way to look at it. I read reports on DU, some of which I am beginning to doubt, that the people of Crimea voted after the government in KIev fell to be separate and picked a president or PM. That is a process, which I wish had occured in Kiev. I was falling for a lot of misinformation for a while there, and agree with you on all points, though.

Just explaing how I inserted my foot in my mouth earlier on another thread. I joke about 'never being wrong' as my opinions are my own, but data at times fails me and I don't see a clear analysis. This is the piece that changed my mind, so I'll show you what I posted:

to frazzled;

Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda

by Timothy Snyder

From Moscow to London to New York, the Ukrainian revolution has been seen through a haze of propaganda. Russian leaders and the Russian press have insisted that Ukrainian protesters were right-wing extremists and then that their victory was a coup. Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, used the same clichés after a visit with the Russian president at Sochi. After his regime was overturned, he maintained he had been ousted by “right-wing thugs,” a claim echoed by the armed men who seized control of airports and government buildings in the southern Ukrainian district of Crimea on Friday.**

Interestingly, the message from authoritarian regimes in Moscow and Kiev was not so different from some of what was written during the uprising in the English-speaking world, especially in publications of the far left and the far right. From Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review through Ron Paul’s newsletter through The Nation and The Guardian, the story was essentially the same: little of the factual history of the protests, but instead a play on the idea of a nationalist, fascist, or even Nazi coup d’état.

In fact, it was a classic popular revolution. It began with an unmistakably reactionary regime. A leader sought to gather all power, political as well as financial, in his own hands. This leader came to power in democratic elections, to be sure, but then altered the system from within. For example, the leader had been a common criminal: a rapist and a thief. He found a judge who was willing to misplace documents related to his case. That judge then became the chief justice of the Supreme Court. There were no constitutional objections, subsequently, when the leader asserted ever more power for his presidency.

In power, this leader, this president, remained a thief, but now on a grand, perhaps even unsurpassed, scale. Throughout his country millions of small businessmen and businesswomen found it impossible to keep their firms afloat, thanks to the arbitrary demands of tax authorities. Their profits were taken by the state, and the autonomy that those profits might have given them were denied. Workers in the factories and mines had no means whatsoever of expression their own distress, since any attempt at a strike or even at labor organization would simply have led to their dismissal.

There is much more at the link, it's well worth the read:

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/

It descibes an oligarchy that was strangling the people of Ukraine. That is why we saw so many peaceful protestors as it began and didn't stop. And former Red Army Ukrainians came to the aid of students, along with Russians and all the groups we can imagine. Gay activists worked with them.

The author, is described as:

Timothy Snyder is Housum Professor of History at Yale and the author of Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. This month, he is to deliver a Philippe Roman Lecture on the origins of the Holocaust at the London School of Economics. (March 2014)

Titles he has written are:
#
Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine
March 20, 2014
#
Ukraine: The New Dictatorship
February 20, 2014
#
‘In the Cage, Trying to Get Out’
October 24, 2013

http://www.nybooks.com/contributors/timothy-snyder-2/?tab=tab-blog

He asks these questions:

Has it ever before happened that people associated with Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian, Armenian, Polish, and Jewish culture have died in a revolution that was started by a Muslim? Can we who pride ourselves in our diversity and tolerance think of anything remotely similar in our own histories?

This article changed my mind where none of the blustering opinions at DU could have. I still want a just outcome for all these people and for Svoboda to be soundly smacked down, and they are not the majority, either. I see why the EU wants to deal with the new government, not Yanukovych.

I still see no villains other than on the personal level, and appreciate even more that we are NOT going to war over this. Now I think some have been misled and I admit to great confusion on this. I'm thinking Yanukovych did need to be taken out of power.

** I also understand why they may think that way. In their minds, they are fighting a war from long ago. They do not know a new way to deal with their own corrupt oligarchical rulers, so they msut revert to old enemies.

JMHO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024592583#post41

I have current friends and family from Ukraine and living in Russia. The friends support Putin, they are young people but they are old school Tartars, no joke. They even want the return of the Czars to end corruption and are stanch Orthodox.

The ones married into a side of the family came from Moscow, have family in Kiev, but they are not sympathetic to Russia and Putin. They immigrated here and are doing fine, and they are very open minded professionals.

So that is my mea culpa. I'm glad to know we are nearly of one mind here, and feel sure that Obama will NOT get us into a war there. There is another thread with some good information about how this is going to be managed:

Ukraine parliament calls for international monitors and for necessary aid to ensure the safety of it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014743130

I see the way to peace there, and not war. I've also seen some who think Putin is going to conquer part of Europe. I don't think he will, he will have to respect those treaties or lose economically, perhaps.

[freshwest]

222. Agreed, that's what I do. That really can get one in trouble for not picking a side. n/t

[DrewFlorida]

94. I'm with you!

[avaistheone1]

98. k&r k&r k&r

[stevenleser]

101. Don't believe it because you haven't seen it. Exactly ONE poster has done that out of

tens of thousands of DUers.

[mstinamotorcity2]

103. Most of the People who call

for Military intervention have nothing spent in the game!!!! Its not their Sons and Daughters dying on the Battlefield. Its not their children that become Casualties of war!!! Its not their cities that are falling under the weight of Warfare. Its easy to sit and placate a Military complex on the guise of intervening on a Russian movement. The only one who wins, are the ones who Designers and Manufacturers of Weapons!!!

[freshwest]

224. +1. And maybe some fossil fuel interests... But they're usually one in the same... n/t

[2banon]

104. I'm with you.. know this: You are NOT alone!

I was just as stunned to actually read du members beating those war drums, even to the extent of outlining military strategy... assuming "U.S. friendly" allies and nations ready and willing to commence in WWIII.

Just astonished and disheartened.

[wisteria]

105. Well, our President continually comes out and threatens.

But, then he doesn't follow through with anything that hurts Putin. IMO, Putin comes off as a delinquent child who is testing how far he can go before he gets smacked down. And, his acts are getting more and more defiant.

I am not advocating that we militarily strike at Russia, but we have got to act now and forcefully with something that will get immediate results from Putin. That could be any of the things Kerry mentioned. But, we have to just stop threatening and do them!

[Cha]

216. What do you think President Obama and Kerry are suppose to do to "hurt Putin" as you say?

What have they said that hasn't been followed through on?

[JoeyT]

106. Well, we've seen Communists and "Why do you hate America!?" as insults on here,

but I haven't seen Satanists pop up yet. I wouldn't think Satanist would hold any punch here, but I wouldn't have thought people would have tried unAmerican or communist as insults either, so there you go.

So far one OP cheerleading a war and others championing the cause in comments like here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014742961

The overwhelming response is pretty much "Are you out of your fucking mind?". So we're a beacon of mostly sanity, if that helps.

[Iliyah]

110. K & R

The GOP/Religious Right are salivating and of course are seeing the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse".

Corporate media are already repeating the GOPers talking points - Pres O is WEAK bullshit. Putin in my opinion is a insecure leader that had to completely take total control of Russia media whereas now the Russia media is 24/7 praising him and totally trashing the West - propaganda. Russia is a dictatorship now.

[bluestateguy]

115. It's somebody else's issue and somebody else's war

I'm very sorry about what is happening, but it is not our problem.

It's really a shame......Bye.

[mike_c]

116. absolutely agree, 100 percent....

But it's the same phenomenon as in 2002: stoke the war fires on the media, inflame the populace against an "enemy," and away we go.

Beware the MIC.

[kestrel91316]

118. DU has a significant contingent of RWNJs pretending to be liberals.

They make this place a cesspool, with their overt misogyny, gaybashing, anti-choice, etc etc crap. And the admins let them get away with it.

[rdharma]

128. You can say that again!

Luckily they're pretty easy to spot.

[bettyellen]

169. Yep, and some manage to just dog whistle and never really say anything overt- or meaningful.

[Agschmid]

131. A very anti war kick.

[stillcool]

132. it's like the Bush years..

Never happened. Since 2008 I take long breaks from political sites. They are no longer the source of information and knowledge they once were. I think the internet is so saturated by advertising and public relations, it is much harder to get beyond the bullshit. There's no way to separate the two. Between the television and the net, I can not imagine how much of my brain is full of shit.

[closeupready]

140. People, even some here, make lots of money on war.

Thus, they don't need many reasons or excuses to beat war drums - there's a built-in upside for them, in either case.

[bvar22]

142. Whats the matter with you bunch of WIMPS??!!!

The Ukraine and Putin need a good dose of our Peace Loving FREEDOM BOMBS,
right fuckin NOW!
We'll show THEM what Democracy & Freedom is all about!
Damn Straight!

They are evil dictators who kill their own people !
If you're not FOR the WAR in
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Syria,
[font size=5]The Ukraine[/font]

you're WITH
The Communists
Al Qaeda
The Terrorists
Saddam
Qaddafi
Assad
[font size=5]PUTIN!!![/font]


Lets get that Freedom Body Count Rolling!!
USA....USA...USA
Democracy!!! Hellfire Missiles & Stealth Bombers!!

[/font]

[annabanana]

192. heh. . . n/t

[MisterP]

240. "this just in: 73% of Americans think Crimeans did 9-11"

I actually doubt it'll get to *that* level

[woo me with science]

166. What happened to DU?

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

[Rex]

172. It is just the extremists here calling for that, they called for instant war with Syria

too and then when Obama said NO...they pretended to be doves. There will always be a fringe group on every political forum that will call for war without giving it a second thought.

[TeamPooka]

178. K&R!

[swilton]

181. Logged in

just to give this a rec!

[Corruption Inc]

183. A large chunk of the American public are nothing more than propaganda responders

Fully trained to have Pavlovian responses to war talk or any other topic fed to them by their media masters. When they speak it's coming from an emotionally conditioned area of their weak mind that believes their worthless comments are somehow insightful and righteous.

Sad but true.

[Kablooie]

184. I think there's a Pavlovian response when Americans hear "Russia".

Like racism it's residue in the American psyche that refuses to be washed away.

[annabanana]

190. Jesus H Christ am I glad I was too busy this morning to lurk....

I would not have believed that William Bloody Kristol would have such an influence here...

[MrMickeysMom]

195. My feet will never be the SAME from marching, TMF...

In fact, it amazes me over the years here how just a decade of short term memory loss shapes the big "D" and idea of democracy OR history in that time.

Big fat K&R to your sentiments here.

[DeSwiss]

197. K&R

[Drunken Irishman]

201. This post is useless without links...

I'd like to see how many DUers really believe we should use WMD (or nuclear weapons) to attack Russia.

I know what it is - one or two posters, in a community of thousands, don't subscribe to group think and that means all of DU is now gungho on war.

Na.

[Doctor_J]

202. You just don't understand chess

and you're probably only against war because the president is black. And you are unwilling to give a little to help win elections.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

209. Some feel the need to whip it out and show it off.

[freshwest]

235. And they haven't a clue how disappointed everyone is when they do. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

251. Actually, the word I would use is, "unimpressed".

[freshwest]

253. That's actually better. I was considering 'uninspired' but that's it right there! n/t

[blackspade]

211. K&R

[Enthusiast]

221. This post has hundreds of recommendations. And rightly so.

[stevenleser]

266. So then, you should be able to point out all of the people advocating for military action.

So far, I see one out of tens of thousands of DUers. Do you think that justifies this OP?

[Enthusiast]

267. Odd, then, that the post has 344 recommendations.

How do you explain it.

[stevenleser]

268. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. Show me the links to who is doing this.

You are the one who supported the OP. Show me the links to who is doing this besides Brentwil.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

334. I too would like to see all the posts demanding military action.

Got any links?

[hrmjustin]

225. Have people been calling for war here? I have not seen it but it is possible.

You will not see me call for war or santctions, but I will call Putin evil and wrong. I think diplomacy is called for now.

[stevenleser]

270. One person has been doing this. Exactly One. But several other folks have penned OPs like this one

exclaiming "I can't believe All of these DUers calling for war!!!!!!111!11!"

And then there are dozens of responses of folks congratulating the OP and each other for agreeing how ridiculous it is.

But no one seems to be able to point anyone out except for Brentwil and frankly, I am the one who pointed him out.

[hrmjustin]

271. I just don't get why people are so upset then.

[stevenleser]

272. I can only guess that some folks strongly desire to be part of a "bandwagon of the righteous"

At least that's the term I just decided upon. I've seen these on DU before. Someone sees one DUer say something, they post an OP saying "How terrible it is that there are folks on DU saying that" and you get over a hundred recs and responses agreeing and then several others write similar OPs with similar responses all the while no one has bothered to check the frequency of the thing they are railing against.

It is an odd phenomenon.

[love_katz]

232. Bravo, TheMightyFavog.

DU Rec!

[bowens43]

237. for some here there is never enough death.

[cer7711]

238. The Human Animal Is Irrational

Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 03:58 AM - Edit history (1)

The DU animal is a shade less irrational than the norm. Most of the time . . .

I do agree with you: 100 rock-solid percent. The idea of the US wading into this fracas with bullets and bombs flying is beyond reckless and mad; it's positively Dr. Strangelove territory.

[wysi]

239. Here is a rec for you.

Thanks for saying what needed to be said.

[The Wizard]

242. trolls (NT)

[MindMover]

255. and amen ...

[Beringia]

257. It struck me

the same way too.

[yuiyoshida]

276. I AM INDEED tired of seeing IMAGES LIKE this...

[TheMightyFavog]

280. And, I myself do not wish to see the lives of millions of Americans put at risk.

I don't want to see our great cities vaporized and the world destroyed.

[yuiyoshida]

281. its simple. Remember one word.

Hiroshima

[TheMightyFavog]

282. I think I'm about to cry...

[yuiyoshida]

283. Well if it makes you feel any better...

Hiroshima today..

[Cheese4TheRat]

285. I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention lately.

If you think this site is left of center, you are sorely mistaken. This site reflects the Democratic Party as a whole, which is 1980s Republicans (Reagan Democrats), and a splash of FDR Democrats trying as hard as they can to reclaim the party.

[newfie11]

287. Your right. Nt

[woo me with science]

294. kick

[woo me with science]

322. kick

[get the red out]

327. I don't read that stuff

Because it is way too stupid to even bother with. WMDs on the table? OK, solve this problem by killing billions of people, sure, that's a great idea.

Can't even go there....

[Tommy_Carcetti]

330. Where are "all these posts" calling for military intervention?

Could it be possible that you see posts asking for some sort of U.S. involvement, not necessarily military involvement, and then assume that they are asking for military involvement?

[Catherina]

344. Logged in just to recommend this. n/t

[CJCRANE]

347. That was Sarah Palin, not DUers.

I'm not sure which board you're reading.

However, I agree with your basic point.

Also bear in mind that DU is not a monolith. There are people with agendas who comment here (from both sides of the aisle).