feels like another instance where equal rights for all is turning into more rights for some less rights for others in the name of equality “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Re: Re: Resorting to threats and/or violence = Admission that your position can't be defended with words
Actually resorting to violence doesn't necessarily imply either that your position can't be defended otherwise or that you are incompetent. It merely implies that you couldn't be bothered to use another approach.
I do think on a monarchy policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of rebels. They do have an ideology of freedom.
All very fine when the radicals have an ideology of freedom. However the current lot of radicals don't. Their ideology is up there with the most repressive ideologies the world has ever seen.
The problem we are facing is this: Should you tolerate intolerance?
So long as the intolerance does not express itself in actions that impact on the freedom of others then yes you should (that is freedom of speech). However that does not mean that you have to be polite to those who promote intolerance. We have been too polite in the past and that has created the problem. To solve it we need to stop being polite - without resorting to force in the way that Gen Clark suggests.
So yeah, the US government and the Russian government don't like each other very much.
I find it worrying that you don't seem to recognise the difference between the Soviet government and the Russian government.
For a while after 1991 the Russians tried to follow the US capitalist prescriptions and the result was disaster. The country was robbed clean by the oligarchs and went down hill rapidly and, worse still, was not much rewarded diplomatically by the west for its trouble.
Putin came in and put a stop to this process and has revived the country considerably (admittedly partly aided by oil revenue). I visited in 1994 and again in 2013 and the difference is quite remarkable.
Consequently he is well like by the Russians and it will take quite a lot to change that. People remember how bad the 1990s were.
Communism was a Western invention that never really fitted Russia. It is not surprising that it didn't work there. It was better suited to Germany (indeed East Germany was quite a successful state).
The current Russian government has little to do with communism. I did see/meet a few old communists on my last visit and they were a pathetic bunch, frankly in enial aboiut what has happened.
The big story in Russia of the last 20 years is the revival of the Orthodox church - which the west has largely ignored except when it sees a way to put a negative spin on it.
In St Petersburg 2 years ago I saw a small group of communist demonstrators (maybe 10 people). Just around the corner was a queue to get into the Kazan Cathedral where the Cross of St Andrew was visiting with the Patriarch of Moscow. The queue stretched around several blocks and totalled probably amile in length. I walked along it for half an hour without reaching the end.
I don't see why not. We described the Taliban as terrorists, and the situations are almost identical.
Actually we didn't describe the Taliban as terrorists. We accused them of harbouring terrorists (Al- Qaeda).
If you could point to some acts of terrorism. (ie violent acts designed to be effective by intimidation rather than by the direct defence or acquisition of territory) then you might have a point - but you can't because what Russia is doing (if it is doing anything directly) is old fashioned direct warfare.
If anything the acts of terrorism are coming from the Ukrainian government side.
the reality is that it is regarded as worse, and if you go around asking Americans, they'll tell you that the Soviet Union is just what Russia was called prior to 1991.
If that is true it is a really frightening indictment of the American public's view of the world.
I was using Russia because General Clark served from 1966 to 2000, during which the enemy was overwhelmingly Russia.
For most of that period the enemy was overwhelmingly the Soviet Union - a very different entity from Russia. The US was unwilling to recognise the change that happened between 1986 and 1991 and hence hade made Russia into more of an enemy than it should have been.
Post 1991 there was no real reason to regard Russia in a worse light than any other ex Soviet/Warsaw pact country. Unfortunately the US had formed alliances with nationalist movements in Eastern Europe, the Baltics etc on the basis that they were anti-communist - when in fact they were as much anti-Russian. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist the West should have dropped these movements and adopted a policy of even handedness on the old national rivalries that re-surfaced. The current anti-western mood in Russia that has driven Putin's policies is the direct result of this mistake.
you could always ask Ukraine if Russia is sponsoring terrorism.
Whatever Russia might be up to in Ukraine it cannot be described as terrorism. Also it depends who you ask. To many in Ukraine it looks like the West sponsored a coup.
It is disturbing that the US seems to dislike Russia simply for being Russia.
I used to think that the US disliked Russia because it was communist - but it hasn't been communist for 25 years+ now and the US still seems to assume instnctively that it is an enemy - whilst states that are much further from US values such as Saudi Arabia are regarded as allies.
Thus is ironic because the terrorism that has most affected the US originated in Saudi Arabia.
So while there is a disconnect between the states /ideologies that actually sponsor terrorism and those that the US blames for it then there is no chance of any progress and the "war on terror" cannot end.
It really does help if you take on the right target.
this question always happens: "Don't you feel a moral obligation to keep people from using it for human trafficking?" Er, it's useful software; if others use it for bad, we can't stop that. [Auto makers aren't liable for drunk drivers either.
To be more precise - the person who invented the automobile isn't liable.
it's curious that The Heritage Foundation is desperate to preserve a system that gives foreign investors such a powerful weapon to use against America.
Except that - on past form - the US will simply ignore any ruling it believes to be against its interests.
The history of EU/US trade relations suggests that the EU will do likewise.
In fact no major country will ever follow the court/tribunal if it feels it can get away with it. In those cases where nations do end up following the judgements the court/tribunal amounts to no more than a formalisation of the mechanisms of international diplomatic pressure that would have applied anyway.
Neither the new "court" nor any ISDS mechanism will have any impact at all - part from the money wasted in paying for the people, buildings etc involved.
He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans.
Those things are bad - yes but it doesn't explain his behaviour because most racist bigots aren't willing to do something that will put them in jail for life (at best).
So by claiming that it does explain his behaviour Timothy Geigner has fallen inot the trap.
"Look at video games," King said during the segment. "Our children play video games and 7 out of 10 of them are violent. Some of our movies are very violent, and we want to see more and more violence."
If tha assessment was right then you would expect to see FAR MORE incidents of this type.
Incidentally I don't think your analysis is correct. Simply to say "He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans." is not an adequate explanation - it is simply badmouthing someone for not subscribing to your own worldview.
If you want an explanation of this kind of violence (ie the kind not perpetrated for personal gain or because of an individual grievance) then it would go something like this.
1. He subscribes to a certain worldview.
2. His knowledge of that worldview leads him to believe that it requires or approves of violence in the cause.
3. His personality type is the kind that will actually act on the basis of his beliefs - even though it is extremely disadvantageous to him personally.
Fortunately personalities of the type in (3) are quite rare - otherwise every extreme racist with access to a gun would go on a killing spree - so your analysis fails for the same reason that Bill O'Reilly's does.