Shahter wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Shahter wrote:
which "us" are you talking about? you, Turq the awsm? - unless you have something to do with those, who profit off of drug trade in afghan, no, it doesn't benefit you. the thing is - usa is a nation, probably THE greatest nation there ever was, which means it's not concerned with your personal interests at all. and in dealings between nations there can only be one thing - competition for resources and power. what earns certain nation more of those or diminishes those of the rest is beneficial the the nation in question.
I'm aware that the CIA has a history of getting involved with drug trade, but it's the consumption of drugs that is profitable - not specifically the killing of drug users.
i highlighted the part for you.
If you're essentially analogizing the current opium trade involving Afghanistan and Russia with Britain's past opium trade with China, then I suppose there might be a few similarities, but I honestly don't see much good coming from "diminishing" Russia's economy. If anything, it's in our best interests to have a prosperous Russia because the wealthier you become, the less likely you'll be to hang onto a large nuclear arsenal and the more stable your country will become. Corruption will probably always be a problem for Russia, but stability and corruption aren't mutually exclusive.
Shahter wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
I didn't say we've done it solely to fight terror. Nearly every war has multiple reasons.
none of which has ever been anything like spreading freedom or surving justice.
Perhaps, but minimizing terrorism makes trade a lot easier. Regardless of our motivations, we are making strides in decreasing fundamentalism in certain areas. I think we've done a decent job in Iraq. Afghanistan might be a lost cause though.
Shahter wrote:
there, you have just proven you don't really know anything about stalin.
The Holodomor caused about 5 million deaths alone. The Great Purge killed at least 724,000. Given Stalin's ruthlessness, it's hard to say the exact number of people he killed during the entirety of his reign, but what we can confirm certainly ranks up there with Hitler.
Shahter wrote:
in ussr they could. and it was bloody effective.
It's your country. If you want a police state, that's your business, but you'll never hear me defend the implementation of one.
Shahter wrote:
as i said, there's time for everything. but now's not the time to decriminalize drugs - actually, it's time to use death penalty against those who spreads that shit again.
That might work in a smaller country like Thailand, but I don't see it working in Russia unless you became a true police state.
Shahter wrote:
as i said, you didn't do anything to combat terrorism in afghanistan, imo. you cannot fight that shit with an army - there's simply no legitimate targets terrorism could possibly present for that kind of stuff. you are there to take care of the regime you can't effectively influence - just like with iraq and with every other place you went to "fix others' problems".
Don't you think them harboring a group that eventually killed almost 3,000 of our citizens might also have had something to do with it?
Shahter wrote:
the way i see it they should return to some of the old practices in this, namely death penalty and forced labour for criminals. no reason to be nice to the fuckers. but, since we are now officially "enlightened", that's probably not going to happen.
The costs of all that are a net loss to society. Forced labor on the scale you're suggesting is more trouble than it's worth.
Shahter wrote:
yeah, japan - that is actually an intereting case and is notable exception from what i posted above, but it is the only one - every other place fortunate enough to be subjected to "freedom and democracy" turned into a sweat shop with corruption galore and all the fun stuff that brings in. japan was able to withstand that shit is, imo, because of their unique culture and tradition of self-discipline, hardworking and respect for each other. that's why californication didn't turn them into greedy beasts with no consern for anything like it does with everybody else.
so, i'd say, japan's exceptional case only reinforces everything i said.
While the community-oriented focus of Japan's culture is worth some admiration, I think you'll find that they are corrupt just like everyone else. They have plenty of greedy people, and the Yakuza actually wields a significant amount of power in their government.
Japan is unique in some respects due to their culture, but their embrace of democracy is not that different from the West. South Korea and Japan also share a lot in common.
I'm just a little surprised that you seem to be implying the Soviets lacked greed. Power corrupts people regardless of the system, which is why the most important aspect of a system is the amount of freedom it affords to the individual rather than to authorities. The more power you consolidate in the hands of authorities, the more abuses of power you experience.
If anything, the leaders of the USSR were greedier than the leaders of most democracies -- not because they were worse people but because they were afforded so much power that greed came naturally. The same human failings manifest in democracies when more power begins to be handed over to officials.
Shahter wrote:
no, i simply aknowledge that there was nobody here who actually knew how to implement that "open market"-shit, which is not surprising at all, don't you think so?
Fair enough, but I still don't see how you see the opening of markets as a problem.
Shahter wrote:
of course. open markets are open for influence - that's why you are out there implementing them.
Nature abhors a vacuum. So does human nature. If you're not being influenced by foreign markets, you're influenced by domestic ones and/or the government. I would rather participate in a market open to the world's various influences than to be part of one that is singularly dominated by domestic and central planning agendas.
Shahter wrote:
if you ever take your time to study history of russia you'll see that only periods of it progressing and building itself up were always periods of fierce protectionism and isolationalism also.
While it is true that various countries go through these periods (including even the U.S.), the difference between Russia and most of these countries is that Russia is large enough and advanced enough to benefit more from having open markets at this point. The oil and gas boom in Russia makes it a perfect time for your country to advance further with the vast amounts of money being made. If industry leaders in Russia have any foresight, they will help to diversify Russia's economy, which partially involves opening up to large amounts of foreign investment and trade.
Shahter wrote:
turned 35 yestoday, dude . so, i actually know what i'm talking about re ussr - unlike most here i've seen what it was like with my own eyes.
Happy belated birthday.
You're a few years older than me then. Nevertheless, I've known people older than you that have immigrated from Russia and from former Soviet republics, and what they have told me paints a vastly different picture of Soviet life.
I work with a man in his 50s from Moldova, and the things he's shared with me make it obvious why he moved here. I've heard Moldova is still a rather unpleasant place even today, but the things he's mentioned made it sound even worse back then.
