spiralmind
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • spiralmind

      FFS, Buzzfeed, get it straight. Russia did not invade Crimea—they’re using an already-stationed force (which they’re allowed to have there) to keep an eye on the border in response to the US’s latest attempt to destabilize the rest of the world. Here’s just the start of what else you’re missing: -For a few years the EU has been trying to force Ukraine into Greece-style penury via financial loans from the IMF—a deal that would have put Ukraine into debt slavery and allowed its funds to be looted by Western bankers. The USA had invested $5 billion in forcing Ukraine toward the deal in various ways, but Yanukovych still opposed it. He announced he’d be getting aid from Russia instead since it didn’t come with those self-destructive strings attached. -The Yanukovych government (corrupt as it was) was democratically elected. Its overthrow was a violent coup totally illegal under Ukrainian and international law. -The overthrow was created, instigated and funded by Washington after months of meddling. However, Washington hasn’t been able to control its violent extreme right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi friends, more than a few of them devoted to ethnically cleansing Ukraine of Russians and Jews. As you can imagine, getting into power hasn’t made them decide to act any nicer. And that’s still only part of why the situation is so screwed up. -The takeover of Crimea was sparked because the new usurpers in the new Ukraine government passed a law eliminating Russian as the place’s official language—which is the first step on the way to campaigns of discrimination, persecution, loss of citizenship and impoverishment for Crimea’s Russian majority. Everyone in the neighborhood remembers that’s what happened in a bunch of the former Soviet republics after the USSR’s collapse in 1991 when they passed similar laws. Therefore Russia had a direct interest in protecting the Russian majority in Crimea from the murderous mayhem Washington unleashed there (see here for a more thorough look). Washington has been provoking Russia for years (surrounding it with missile bases and creating the mess Georgia started back in ‘08 among other things). Now they’ve lit a powder keg right on Russia’s border and Putin is defending his security and interests in the most reasonable way possible (so far). This article was a decent showing for half an hour of googling, but you didn’t dig nearly deep enough.

    • Response to The Day Lehman Died:
      spiralmind

      That’s only part of the story. Lehman didn’t just collapse, they were thrown under the bus to scare people. Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke could have saved Lehman the same way they saved AIG the next day. They chose not to, just to create a panic. They wanted to ram through the Wall Street bailouts—the biggest outright theft of taxpayer money in American history—and Congress needed to be scared into to going along with the plan. The entire ‘crisis’ was a phony manufactured sham (just like the regular agreements over the debt ceiling). None of it’s real or necessary. It’s all nothing but a sky-is-falling distraction to keep the victims from realizing how they’re being screwed. Here’s some vital reading if you want to really understand the context here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/17/financial-terrorism/

    • spiralmind

      Wow. It’d take another article twice as long just to unpack everything wrong with this one. Mittens was right about some things, and wrong about some things, and sometimes right or wrong for the opposite reasons of what people think. Russia’s not an enemy. Sometimes it thwarts some of the US’s efforts, but those are instances where they’re right and Washington is wrong. They were right (and legally compelled) to offer asylum to Snowden since he’d face nothing but harsh unlawful punishment in the US with no hope of anything resembling justice. Russia’s doing the right thing by trying to block Obama’s heinous unjustifiable war on Syria. But then again, if Romney had become president he’d be trying exactly the same things O is trying now, except the Republicrats would be supporting those policies and the Demicans would be pretending to oppose them. (Russia would be in the wrong if that chemical weapons accusation was true, but we don’t know that—the White House and Pentagon have only lied about everything where Syria’s concerned—and Russia would still have only a fraction of America’s guilt when it comes to chemical weapons anyway.) Obomneycare isn’t a progressive policy. It’s an anti-reform bill designed to keep predatory corporations in charge of the health industry, increase their profits, force more poor people into being stuck as consumers, and prevent any reform that would have genuinely controlled costs or turned the system public or non-profit. That’s why Mittens first pushed the exact same plan on Massachusetts and would have supported it again if elected. The delays are only happening because both parties want the plan to be dragged out as long as possible before it falls apart (in order to milk as much corporate profit as possible before any pressure builds for true reform). In the meantime the Republicrats and Demicans are each just saying what their base wants to hear, on the assumption that their base is still fooled into thinking the ACA was somehow a progressive plan to help people. (Yes, there are a few beneficial provisions in the bill. Those are only there to, again, mute opposition to the bill and help keep the people from realizing how much they’re really being screwed.) Ultimately it doesn’t matter what the guv was right or wrong about. He’s bought and owned by the same interests as Obama is. In office he would have done exactly the same things. Team Red and Team Blue would have switched roles when it comes to supporting or opposing things. Nothing would have changed, and nothing still will until the people stop thinking of everything in terms of red and blue to begin with.

    • spiralmind

      Seriously, read the act. My advice exactly. You’re apparently still missing the most important part. The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Yes, the act has been abused. Yes, Congress hasn’t enforced its Constitutional responsibility in our lifetimes and probably won’t. But none of that matters because the USA has not been attacked since 1942, Congress hasn’t declared war since 1942, and thus the WPR has never applied to any action Washington has taken.