Noam Chomsky: "yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election"

[Sweet Jesus]

From my perspective it is.

You remind me of young kids in the back seat of the car who keep on asking "Are we there yet"; "Are we there yet"?

Come on. You can do better than that.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

But that is straight from the Kremlin's propaganda script.

To have the US president sit there and say that maybe the US is no better than Russia is their wet dream.

Yeah ok so the U.S. are always in the right then. This is how people get away with not adressing the point at hand. "Oh you don't think Russia is the enemy, therefore you are part of their propoganda machine." Seriously, could one be anymore simplistic?
This is how people in Hollywood (which everyone knows is in Clinton's back pocket) are sprouting their rubbish. Case in point,
Alyssa Milano;

 

[Procrastinator35]

Come on. You can do better than that.

Frame your questions back towards the O/P & the underlying arguments both for & against it then, & I'll oblige you.

Remember, both Chomsky & my position are that Russia-gate is essentially a croc of shite. And the reasons for that position has everything to do with control of U.S purse-strings & foreign policy.....In other words, fundamentally anti-Democratic in nature behind it's underlying motivations.

The usual Imperial edicts of Control & power.

 

[GuruJane]

I'd never heard of this website before yesterday, and am unsure on how reliable it is, but here's the article:

2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives

That's a reputable website as is the author - mainstream in fact not conspiracy.

The trump tower setup is definitely the direction in which this story is headed. A story, btw, which is now lapping at the edge of the Mueller investigation.

I'm beginning to think Rudi knows something when he says Mueller probe will blow up.

 

[Maggie5]

I'd never heard of this website before yesterday, and am unsure on how reliable it is, but here's the article:

2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

 

[Seeds]

Haha, yeah no wars going on at the moment.

Go look at a chart showing global deaths from war. You will see it’s at record lows. Relative to history there are virtually no wars on the planet at the moment. The last thirty years has been one of the most peaceful times in human existence.

 

[smokingjacket]

Or maybe you've wandered into the wrong cinema and started throwing popcorn at the screen because you were expecting a different movie.

We?

I asked the other guy a question and you interjected. If you want to have a discussion about Nato today, then that's well and good. But there was a discussion predating your arrival and its term weren't set by you.

Welcome to an internet forum, enjoy your stay. I asked you a followup to your post about NATO and your response was whether NATO was needed now doesn't answer the question of whether it has ever been needed. I didn't bring the NATO chat into the thread.

Isn't this slightly ahistorical? I mean, the norm for Europe over the journey has not been peace and friendship and accords with Russia. Nato has helped underwrite relative peace in Europe for 70 years but that peace has not been the norm for Europe historically. So should we assume that if you took Nato out of the equation, that historically atypical peace would remain? You have to be determined in your glass-half-full approach to propose that, don't you? I am open-mined but I am cognizant that peace in Europe may be the exception, thanks partly to Nato, rather than the rule.

Isn't peace between Mexico and the US slightly ahistorical? Russia was part of the European security framework primarily from the 16th century onwards. The European powers balanced against one another at different times so no, obviously there has rarely been a time when Continental Europe had formal agreements with Russia but there's plenty of cases of alliances with European powers, primarily in the 18th and 19th century in an attempt to create a stable security situation in Europe through deterrence. The most well known being the Tripartite agreement between France-Russia and France-UK as a legacy of the Franco-Prussian war.

If the EU collapses you might have a point, but as long as Europe is dominated by the European Union, I don't see how war can break out within the EU, and if anything, the US presence in NATO exacerbates those tensions through the need to incorporate bad faith actors such as Turkey into the alliance and US/NATO's history of coup and meddling in elections in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany etc. I think you have to be looking at post-war European history through a very particular anti-communist lens to view the US presence in say Italy or Greece as stabilising.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Go look at a chart showing global deaths from war. You will see it’s at record lows. Relative to history there are virtually no wars on the planet at the moment. The last thirty years has been one of the most peaceful times in human existence.

Jeebus.

 

[smokingjacket]

That's a reputable website as is the author - mainstream in fact not conspiracy.

The trump tower setup is definitely the direction in which this story is headed. A story, btw, which is now lapping at the edge of the Mueller investigation.

I'm beginning to think Rudi knows something when he says Mueller probe will blow up.

So the Clinton campaign was so sure they would lose, they spent millions of dollars hiring Kremlin spooks to visit Trumps campaign before the election, and to not use the information gleaned from it during the campaign when the Clintons are known for the their unerring ruthlessness using dirt and dirty political campaigns, just so they could aid a future investigation into Trumps ties to Russia.

Occams razor incoming.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Welcome to an internet forum, enjoy your stay. I asked you a followup to your post about NATO and your response was whether NATO was needed now doesn't answer the question of whether it has ever been needed.

I merely directed you to the broader discussion already at hand.

Isn't peace between Mexico and the US slightly ahistorical?

I hardly think that is comparable to the history of conflict in Europe but let's set that aside and accept the analogy at face value.

If peace between Mexico and the US is historically atypical, what is the reason for the recent period of relative peace? What conditions have underpinned this sustained period without war? Should we upend those conditions and assume peace would endure?

Because that seems to be what you propose in Europe vis-a-vis Nato.

If the EU collapses you might have a point, but as long as Europe is dominated by the European Union, I don't see how war can break out within the EU

Why's that? What about a non-member going to war with a member?

if anything, the US presence in NATO exacerbates those tensions through the need to incorporate bad faith actors such as Turkey into the alliance and US/NATO's history of coup and meddling in elections in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany etc. I think you have to be looking at post-war European history through a very particular anti-communist lens to view the US presence in say Italy or Greece as stabilising.

So you are arguing not just for the abolition of Nato but for the US to withdraw from Europe entirely? Is that likely to happen?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah ok so the U.S. are always in the right then.

Who said that?

Is this your attempt at making an argument? Dangling out a statement that no one made? Try again.

This is how people get away with not adressing the point at hand.

The point that the US president recited something straight from the Kremlin propaganda playbook?

Not only does that not raise a red flag for you. You actually think it's worth applauding.

"Oh you don't think Russia is the enemy, therefore you are part of their propoganda machine." Seriously, could one be anymore simplistic?

It's one thing to seek a constructive relationship with Russia. It is another to suggest total moral equivalence between Russia and the US. That is Kremlin propaganda. And the US president parroted it.

Can you imagine what the Republicans would have done had Obama said something to that effect about another unfriendly regime? Their heads would have exploded.

This is how people in Hollywood (which everyone knows is in Clinton's back pocket) are sprouting their rubbish. Case in point,
Alyssa Milano;

Why did you post a tweet from Alyssa Milano?

That is your counterpoint to the comments of the US president?

 

[smokingjacket]

If peace between Mexico and the US is historically atypical, what is the reason for the recent period of relative peace? What conditions have underpinned this sustained period without war? Should we upend those conditions and assume peace would endure?

Because that seems to be what you propose in Europe vis-a-vis Nato.

A combination of the US Civil War, the US hitting the limits of relatively underpopulated areas of Mexican land to annex, and the end of the expansionary frontier phase of US imperialism, replaced with an inward looking, isolationist mindset.

Are you suggesting that NATO and the US is responsible for the European powers not going to war with each other as opposed to the European Community/EU? Because....I do not believe that is the case. NATO did a fine job in deterring the Soviet Union but it also caused tension between European states.

Why's that? What about a non-member going to war with a member?

So you are arguing not just for the abolition of Nato but for the US to withdraw from Europe entirely? Is that likely to happen?

EU members are obligated to come to the military assistance of another member state if attacked by a non-member state. Covered under the mutual assistance clause and parts of the solidarity clause of the EU Charter.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Are you suggesting that NATO and the US is responsible for the European powers not going to war with each other as opposed to the European Community/EU? Because....I do not believe that is the case. NATO did a fine job in deterring the Soviet Union but it also caused tension between European states.

I'd suggest Nato is part of a post-war international order that has been successful insofar as Europe has avoided major conflicts in those 70-odd years. Yugoslavia aside.

Would scrapping Nato not be an invitation for Putin to start pissing in everyone's pockets? Suddenly those smaller states have to think about their individual security concerns differently, given they are no longer under the Nato umbrella. Fertile ground for pro-Russia politicians in those old Soviet states.

EU members are obligated to come to the military assistance of another member state if attacked by a non-member state. Covered under the mutual assistance clause and parts of the solidarity clause of the EU Charter.

I guess I have my doubts about whether they have sufficient unity of purpose to follow through on that. If Russia decided to roll the tanks into Estonia one day, you reckon the EU would stand as one to repel that invasion? How do you suppose Britain would react?

 

[smokingjacket]

I'd suggest Nato is part of a post-war international order that has been successful insofar as Europe has avoided major conflicts in those 70-odd years. Yugoslavia aside.

Would scrapping Nato not be an invitation for Putin to start pissing in everyone's pockets? Suddenly those smaller states have to think about their individual security concerns differently, given they are no longer under the Nato umbrella. Fertile ground for pro-Russia politicians in those old Soviet states.

Whether NATO was a stabilising force, you can argue, maybe, that having the US as a powerful external actor helped the process along, but NATO was primarily an anti-communist alliance and the cost to democracy in southern Europe was extraordinary. Really, Europe was very ready for peace. The #1. reason the EU was created and is borne through gritted teeth in the provider states is to stop a major war in continental Europe ever happening again.

The EU has a collective defence policy already? Why would Estonia be looking at individual security concerns? As I said, the dissolution of NATO would give the EU the impetus it needs to restructure their national army system and create some form of EU army or multiforce. France just on its own has effective enough armed strength to resist an advance from the current Russian military, throw Germany in as well and in just the two core states you have more than enough military strength to repel any invasion to the Baltics. To be honest though its incredibly unlikely that Putin would ever try something like that because the Russian military would only just have the capability to mount such an operation, the cost would be prohibitive, the gain negligible, the EU states would inflict crippling sanctions, the Russian economy would fall off a cliff 90's style. Where they can do damage is nibble away at the edges with cyber attacks. Besides, good luck being a pro-Russian politician in Estonia, strewth.

I guess I have my doubts about whether they have sufficient unity of purpose to follow through on that. If Russia decided to roll the tanks into Estonia one day, you reckon the EU would stand as one to repel that invasion? How do you suppose Britain would react?

?? You have absolute confidence in the Americans on another continent coming to the collective defence of Estonia but no faith in the EU member states coming to the aid of one of their fellow members? So really you just have questions about collective defence so why is NATO worth more than any other treaty?

It's much more likely that EU member states will come to the aid of members than the US, for economic reasons if nothing else.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Whether NATO was a stabilising force, you can argue, maybe, that having the US as a powerful external actor helped the process along, but NATO was primarily an anti-communist alliance and the cost to democracy in southern Europe was extraordinary. Really, Europe was very ready for peace.

Western Europe might have been. But clearly there was a view that the Soviets needed "containing". Not unreasonably. Clearly those other states, the former members of the Warsaw pact, felt there was good reason to join Nato. But yes, it was steeped in fears of communism. It was also the nominal creation of the "liberal international order", which is high-falutin and perhaps ambiguous. Even so, is it not worth preserving?

The #1. reason the EU was created and is borne through gritted teeth in the provider states is to stop a major war in continental Europe ever happening again.

Is that not an overstatement?

The EU has a collective defence policy already? Why would Estonia be looking at individual security concerns? As I said, the dissolution of NATO would give the EU the impetus it needs to restructure their national army system and create some form of EU army or multiforce.

I'm not convinced the EU could/would wipe its own arse in that regard.

France just on its own has effective enough armed strength to resist an advance from the current Russian military, throw Germany in as well and in just the two core states you have more than enough military strength to repel any invasion to the Baltics.

But would they?

To be honest though its incredibly unlikely that Putin would ever try something like that because the Russian military would only just have the capability to mount such an operation, the cost would be prohibitive, the gain negligible, the EU states would inflict crippling sanctions, the Russian economy would fall off a cliff 90's style. Where they can do damage is nibble away at the edges with cyber attacks. Besides, good luck being a pro-Russian politician in Estonia, strewth.

It's true that Putin is unlikely to invade. The Russian threat isn't existential and probably not even military escalation. The threat has changed and perhaps Nato needs to change as well. It's more like Russia's hustling and harassment and trying to make the smaller states dependent on Russia in a way they are not currently. Destabilising them, weakening their institutions. Clearly Putin dislikes Nato - he sees it as a constraint on Russia's ability to project power in its own backyard. That's why he wants to see it weakened. And if he gets his way, what might he do? He's already sniffing around, emboldened by these divisions in the West. If you scrapped Nato, how would that alter his strategy? Is it not fair to assume Putin would be further emboldened to bully these smaller states, should they become more isolated without the solidarity of Nato? Isn't that ultimately what Putin wants? To unofficially restore something like the Soviet Union's sphere of influence?

If the EU can in fact replace that function of Nato, then well and good. But I'm not convinced that's ready to go. The EU isn't exactly in great shape these days.

You have absolute confidence in the Americans on another continent coming to the collective defence of Estonia but no faith in the EU member states coming to the aid of one of their fellow members? So really you just have questions about collective defence so why is NATO worth more than any other treaty?

I had more confidence in the Americans before Trump rolled into town. And now here we are.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I had more confidence in the Americans before Trump rolled into town. And now here we are.

Really?.....So you had no problems whatsoever with Bush perpetrating the crime of the century, in destroying a country that had absolutely *-all to do with 9/11....And all of it prefaced upon another pack of fabricated lies, as a means by which to begin & perpetuate this now endless 15 years old war against Muslims & so-called terrorism......Even though we now know that the West is terrorisms biggest sponsors.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So you had no problems whatsoever with Bush perpetrating the crime of the century, in destroying a country that had absolutely ****-all to do with 9/11

Who said that?

If you read the post I was responding to, you will understand that I said I had more confidence in the Americans coming to the aid of their Nato partners before Trump showed up. I'm not clear how that relates to the Iraq War and 9/11.

And all of it prefaced upon another pack of fabricated lies, as a means by which to begin & perpetuate this now endless 15 years old war against Muslims & so-called terrorism......Even though we now know that the West is terrorisms biggest sponsors.

Is there a question in there somewhere?

 

[smokingjacket]

Is that not an overstatement?

No

 

[Procrastinator35]

Who said that?

If you read the post I was responding to, you will understand that I said I had more confidence in the Americans coming to the aid of their Nato partners before Trump showed up. I'm not clear how that relates to the Iraq War and 9/11.

Trump is merely following the same policies as his 5 predecessors before him, so far as NATO is concerned.....Twas Clinton, following on in the footsteps of Bush senior, who brazenly flouted the Reagan/Gorbachev pact, in the slow creep towards Russia's borders.

And besides....All this is an exercise in futility anyhow, given both super-powers have the mutual self-destruction capacity & capabilities at hand....Which really does expose & lend the lie to what a complete farce NATO is.

As I've said previously, it's merely designed to make greedy billionaires in the military industrial complex even richer at all our expenses.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Trump is merely following the same policies as his 5 predecessors before him, so far as NATO is concerned

I'm not sure that's entirely true.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Thus far it is....Unless there's been a retreat that I've not heard about....Or he's cancelled the increase in funding to the Ukrainians in their civil war in the Donblast border region.....Last I heard, the build-up in the Baltic continues apace & the U.S also has a flotilla placed in the Black Sea.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thus far it is....Unless there's been a retreat that I've not heard about....Or he's cancelled the increase in funding to the Ukrainians in their civil war in the Donblast border region.....Last I heard, the build-up in the Baltic continues apace & the U.S also has a flotilla placed in the Black Sea.

My point is that Trump seems uniquely averse to multilateralism and seems far more eager to undermine international institutions.

 

[Procrastinator35]

My point is that Trump seems uniquely averse to multilateralism and seems far more eager to undermine international institutions.

The U.S have been both bullies & intimidatory on the world stage now, for a millennium.....Diplomacy is a lost art upon them....That's the nature of empire.

 

[Werewolf]

To answer your question Seeds, mod requirement on two boards about subjects that I'm interested in, good temperament and clean infraction history, good spelling & grammar, and above average history knowledge. Now we'll go through this post...

The Russia bashing is being pushed by facets of the American military industrial complex through the media. They are so obviously desperate for a war with Russia and it's downright disgusting. The FBI/CIA or whoever the bloody hell it is has a history of lying in order to cause war.

Obviously no one wants nuclear annihilation of all life on Earth, just another cold war type rivalry or maybe another proxy war between the two countries. Side note: replace "Russians" with a non-white group and it sounds dodgy. E.g. Anti-Semitic in the case of "Jews/Israelis/Zionists". Not that I'm big on PC/SJW stuff, but the parallel is there. I concede that you could take issue with including the FBI on the blame list.

Hollywood and their mainstream media are also throwing the toys out of the cot, re their corrupt candidate H Clinton, and they can't hack that people woke up to this.

First part's true, admittedly most people still don't know the extent/details of said corruption.

That's not to say Trump is faultless by any means, but people need to seriously get some perspective.

OK I'm fairly certain nearly everyone can agree that Trump has several character flaws!

Two world powers becoming allies would be great, especially if it means one less war having to be fought (particularly because we always follow the US).

Who can deny that? This planet is big enough for the US and Russia to coexist.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The U.S have been both bullies & intimidatory on the world stage now, for a millennium.....Diplomacy is a lost art upon them....That's the nature of empire.

Yes, yes, we all know where you sit.