|
Post by kaima on Aug 19, 2008 0:06:53 GMT -7
After the conversation, McCain issued a statement, written by Scheunemann, in which he warned Russia over Georgian sovereignty in South Ossetia. Later that day, Scheunemann's Orion Strategies lobbying firm signed a new $200,000 deal with Georgia: all in a day's work. Jaga, it is nice to know someone is getting rich out of our politicians advocating our lives and treasure be put on line for foreign causes. WAS IT CRIBBED ? There's a general consensus that the conflict in Georgia has been good for John McCain (yep, this is a US presidential election year - every event is measured here in terms of which candidate benefits from it). He's long maintained a hard-line stance against Russia and not only knows Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili but has gone jet-skiing with him. But Taegan Goddard has been alerted by an eagle-eyed Wikipedia editor to some pretty close similarities between McCain's address to the cameras yesterday and the wiki entry for Georgia. There's been an aggressive pushback on this from the McCain campaign because anything that undermines the Arizona senator's national security credentials - viewed as his strongest suit - runs the risk of eroding a central appeal of his candidacy. Perhaps alleged wikiplagiarism might even play into the not-understanding-the-internets rap on McCain. And who can forget Joe Biden going down in flames in 1988 for plagiarising Neil Kinnock, though there was a considerable amount of mitigation that gets lost in the mirth and the mists of time. The McCain campaign took the unusual step of giving Jonathan Martin an internal email from McCain's top aide laying out the structure of the speech as outlined by McCain himself. "Jsm just called," wrote top aide Mark Salter, referring to the Arizona senator's initials. "He would like to explain a little georgian history. Old nation. Absorbed into ussr. Independent after cold war. Plagued by corruption. Then rose revolution. President us educated." Salter added that McCain wanted to explain why the issue was important: "Intimidating and laying marker for others in near abroad like ukraine. Pipeline etc. Then get into his recommendations." Interesting but I'm not sure this settles it. After all, it's possible that whoever drafted the speech might have turned to Wikipedia for inspiration. Not the worst ever campaign sin but sloppy work if that's what happened. Journalists well know the perils of using Wikipedia. Of course, it's an invaluable resource and I often look at it several times a day. But if you take quotes from it and don't go to anything else then it's blindingly obvious to readers how lazy you've been. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/08/13/did_john_mccain_crib_his_georgia_statement_from_wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 22, 2008 21:15:23 GMT -7
Do you remember we had a discussion about Georgia and that the conflict between Russia and Georgia is more complex than presented here and there is no black and white since it was clearly Georgia that attacked Russia first. Russia than responded protecting its interests, like any superpower would.... here is what Colin Powell things about it: www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/22/colin-powell-says-georgia-provoked-russian-crisis-hints-mccains-response-was-hasty-reckless/POWELL: And I think it was foolhardy on the part of President Saakashvili and the Georgian government to kick over this can, to light a match in a roomful of gas fumes. SESNO: So you’re saying the Georgians provoked this? POWELL: They did. I mean, there was a lot of reasons to have provocations in the area, but the match that started the conflagration was from the Georgian side. AMANPOUR: And yet… POWELL: And that’s a given. AMANPOUR: And some debate in the presidential elections has basically been, “We are all Georgians now.” What does that mean? It’s the same as was said after 9/11. POWELL: One candidate said that, and I’ll let the candidate explain it for himself. […] You have to be very careful in a situation like this not just to leap to one side or the other until you’ve taken a good analysis of the whole situation.
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on Sept 24, 2008 4:12:58 GMT -7
Do you remember we had a discussion about Georgia and that the conflict between Russia and Georgia is more complex than presented here and there is no black and white since it was clearly Georgia that attacked Russia first. Russia than responded protecting its interests, like any superpower would.... Russia has planned the game ahead to have an excuse destabilizing Georgia. They were first for weeks provoking the Georgians. Saakatchvilli could have been more cold-blooded and thinking ahead more than two moves. But he didn't send troops to another country but to part of Georgia. Also, we cannot compare US and Russian military actions - Americans come and win (if they win, of course), help rebuild the system with at least more justice in it (ie. Iraq, South Korea, Germany) and then leave and start making business. Both sides prosper. Compare that to Russia.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 24, 2008 5:30:27 GMT -7
Tufta,
+++we cannot compare US and Russian military actions - Americans come and win+++
I thought the same before I learned a bit more about American politics. Do you really believe that the US invaded Iraq because they hated Saddam and that this had nothing to do with Iraq having petroleum deposists? I don't....
Go to Kapuscinski's website and read about the US involvement in Guatemala. there is a lots of similarities between empirres - whether it is a Soviet empire or American empire.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 24, 2008 7:16:04 GMT -7
Tufta, +++we cannot compare US and Russian military actions - Americans come and win+++ I thought the same before I learned a bit more about American politics. Do you really believe that the US invaded Iraq because they hated Saddam and that this had nothing to do with Iraq having petroleum deposists? I don't.... Go to Kapuscinski's website and read about the US involvement in Guatemala. there is a lots of similarities between empirres - whether it is a Soviet empire or American empire. Very well said Jaga For your words were to jostle my memory of a currant article presented by a small city news of this very topic ,that would be of ease to by-pass. www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008709249826For that also corresponds with an adjacent writing of: {U.S. Foreign Policy and Regime Instability}. Of this, I shant not forward for of respect to those it may offend. I am not sure of confusion some have of these foreign policies that seem not to be known. Karl
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on Sept 24, 2008 8:14:14 GMT -7
I thought the same before I learned a bit more about American politics. Do you really believe that the US invaded Iraq because they hated Saddam and that this had nothing to do with Iraq having petroleum deposists? I don't.... Go to Kapuscinski's website and read about the US involvement in Guatemala. there is a lots of similarities between empirres - whether it is a Soviet empire or American empire. Jaga, I do appreciate your point of view, but I can't agree here. It is possible I miss something but I'd like to see more data if I am to change my mind I don't know if US may be called an empire in the same meaning as Russia is called. But you're right there're similarities in operation of any large country and so between Russia and US. It is the same as there're similarities in the operation of two human bodies. But life result and quality of a man whose mind works against society is uncomparable with the outcome for a man who basically works for it. So all depends on how deep or superfical we go into comparison. I am not idealistic towards US, we have been through that phase in communist times when US was practically the only country in the world that actually helped us to achieve total liberty. I mean country, not the people, as for instance private help of the French, or the so called 'new' German people was invaluable for some families to even survive. But that's a digression. I am not idealistic and I fully recognize, even living in Poland, the roots of American policies. And these roots are so different from Russia's to a degree that no comparison is possible. Not the methods are different as the methods are 'a professional artisan' work, so to say. The masters in any art always act the same. Including art of war, art of propaganda, art of intelligence etc. So when we look at this layer we can say -look at , these big guys, they are all the same. When we look at US sending troops to other countries and Russia doing the same, we can again exclaim – they are the same! And so happens often. And it is in fact a great victory of Russian propaganda, and many i friends Russia has among Western European and American people. Acting throughout many years with a consequence US have never achieved. And if we look behind the disgusting and creepy world the public gets glimpes of - the difference is obvious. US is a self-restraining power. It's main force is A delibarate self-restraint and allowing as many states as can be to prosper and strengthen US by doing business. The benefit is mutual. And btw - the people of America still live at the level of wealth unimabinable for most of Russians. On the other hand Russia has always been a non-self-restraining power. It's main force is having a nuclear and energetic potential with which it tries to subdue other states. How the subdued prosper is irrelevant to the administration. Even the level of life of Russians is not extremely relevant to the administration, and as a result most still live at the level of poverty unimaginable to most Americans. The same happens, as a rule to countries Russia manages to subdue. No Jaga, I don't think there's much comparison. Even if we take together all the occasional dirty actions of US throughout the history. I went to Kapuscinski site but I can't find the text on Guatemala.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 24, 2008 11:04:08 GMT -7
Tufta, I still think you are too idealistic. Soviet Union is not just similar to the US because they are just two countries. Russia and the US are two imperial countries with their zones of interest and sometimes very naive public opinion. Here are the books by Kapuscinski: serwisy.gazeta.pl/kapuscinski/0,23083.html if you can download: serwisy.gazeta.pl/kapuscinski/1,23083,472708.html it talks how America messed up with Guatemala for one American corporation which has headquarters there. This is all true!
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Sept 24, 2008 11:42:45 GMT -7
Tufta,
It is nice to read some complimentary views on the US from foreign perspective. Sometimes it is hard to keep in mind the positive about our country when we get wrapped up about the screw ups, particulalry under this administration. In this case I doubt that any of our resident knee-jerk patriots will criticize you as a foreigner for commenting on the US, as they do when words are critical of the US.
As good as we sometimes are and the motivation that we have, some of us int he US simply have a view to 'do it still better' and to live up to an even higher standard of putting idealism into practice.
I would say my first serious questions of US activity and motivation int he world came in my teenage years, the 1960's, when I wondered why we do not export democracy. At that time we had had the Philippines, Cuba and Panama under our control since 1898 and yet all three were firm dictatorships, with Cuba recently coming under the control of Castro and the regime that eventually would be recognized as Communist.
I had to wonder, if we were true to our ideals, why at least two of these three countries were not effective democracies after so many decades of American control and influence. It seemed instead that the Soviets and Red Chinese were exporting communism quite effectively - a competition we clearly could not keep up with. Trying to stem this competition was attacked militarily in Vietnam, not politically or by inspired local revolution as I would have expected.
Now that the first 8 reasons for invading Iraq proved baseless, we are officially in there to 'bring democracy' to a land that has no tradition of it. Since I can't believe anyone would believe that cultural change could be accomplished in a few short years, I can only read that as a firmly based false hope.
Back to the original message, it is nice to read some positive perceptions of this (potentially) great nation.
Kai
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on Sept 25, 2008 1:38:41 GMT -7
I read the book in one piece ... I need more cofee today. Kapuscinski as always great. Thanks for the hint, Jaga. Kai, thank you for your remarks as well. I perfectly understand and appreciate the stance of own-country critics. You are the driving force. The book Dlaczego zginął Karl von Spreti or Why Karl von Spreti died in part is virtually a history of competition of two countries which at some period of their history have made racism one of the hallmarks of their systems and mentality. For both states this period is over, btw. The stage of this competition is a country without a nation which was always, but three years, ruled by a blood-thirsty and usually military tyrant (sometimes collective). Three elements have always been oppressing the 70 % of Guatemala's population treated virtually as subhumans, or slaves (Indians living in the villages). These are – a local tyrant with 30% of population, mainly German and American owners (white or half-white city dwellers) plus the two countries behind the colonists – USA and Germany, both supporting the oppressors and competing between each other. And using local animosities against each other. At one point USA took occasion to finally end this competition and exclude Germany from the game. Which was having traditional interests in Guatemala , the interests (then -at the book's present time) relatively freshly strengthened by thousands of Nazists escaping to Latin America after WWII. This occasion was abstaining from helping the little ally by big ally to save Karl von Spreti. Against the predictions of local guerrillas who hijacked the German ambassador. In another layer – which you probably meant, Jaga, the book tells a story of a cynical and cold blooded policies and actions of the CIA in Guatemala (and other parts of Latin America). These are often used by Russian propaganda to make an impression US acts just like they do. I still think these are incomparable, and the wrong doings and lack of self-restraint (in Guatemala explained by racism, explained not justified) are rather exceptions to the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Sept 25, 2008 10:03:45 GMT -7
+++In another layer – which you probably meant, Jaga, the book tells a story of a cynical and cold blooded policies and actions of the CIA in Guatemala (and other parts of Latin America). These are often used by Russian propaganda to make an impression US acts just like they do. I still think these are incomparable, and the wrong doings and lack of self-restraint (in Guatemala explained by racism, explained not justified) are rather exceptions to the rule. +++
Yes, I know what you mean by Soviet propaganda telling us about bad America. But.... unfortunately many American actions (although not all) can be explained by American interests rather than pure idealism
|
|