General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe knee-jerk dismissal (by some) of Putin's remarks is so drearily typical of the 'Ugly American'
Putin is certainly not the most savory character, and no doubt criticism coming from someone like him can be hard to take. But I have yet to see anybody refute the substance of what he wrote in his Op-Ed.
But isn't this so typical of America (and Americans)? We convince ourselves that we inhabit some lofty moral plane where America is, always and everywhere, the 'good guy' and anybody who opposes us (or points out our rather glaring hypocrisies) is, always and everywhere, the very incarnation of evil (or the 'bad guy'). (And before anybody jumps down my throat about that remark, I am NOT defending Putin and his misdeeds). So along comes a critic like Putin -- a very complicated fellow, to be sure -- with some criticism that we, as a nation, probably really need to hear. But rather than grapple with such truth as might be contained in his words, we get on our moral high horse and point instead to his moral failings, and then feel justified in dismissing out of hand anything he might have to say (even if much of it happens to be true), all the while remaining willfully obtuse about, blissfully blind to, our own myriad failings and hypocrisies as a nation. (But of course, if we actually allowed that his remarks may have some shred of validity, it would undermine our Manichean view of the world in which the U.S. is always the side of goodness and light and puppies and kittens.)
We seem to adopt this defensive moral posture to a significantly greater extent that the citizens of most other countries. Hey, wait a minute . . . maybe I believe in 'American exceptionalism' after all: since Americans certainly do seem to be exceptionally self-righteous!
Taverner
(55,476 posts)gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)I guess you'll be back in to give him props as well.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)The message and the messenger are not the same thing.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)So although the message is right, it's fair to point out the hypocritical piece of shit saying it.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)It's full of bullshit.
Carry on.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)I went back and reread the piece about an hour ago and to tell the truth other than that condescending horseshit for the religious audience I didn't see a bit of his message that was off point.
So the task is up to you - where is the bullshit? Tell me that and then I'll be happy to carry on.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Because all that does is detract from the message itself and if the correctness of the message is the point then it is pointless to denigrate that message with irrelevant information.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)warrior1
(12,325 posts)how do you feel about his treatment of gays in Russia?
He's an evil dictator, period.
He can go pound sand and then deliver what he said to the President at the G20. Until, I could care less what he has to say.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)I specifically acknowledged that Putin is an unsavory character who is guilty of plenty of his own misdeeds. That would include the treatment of LGBT folks (of particular concern to me since I am gay myself). But the substance of what Putin wrote is very consistent with views concerning American political (and geopolitical) culture and posturing that I have held for many, many years.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)What a great guy ... he is so right about ... milk ....
robbob
(3,538 posts)i.e "Putin is NOT a great guy".
So Hitler loved milk? Does that mean I cant like milk now?
markiv
(1,489 posts)and when he spoke on these issues, he was right (in fact, those cars are still on the road today)
but his being right on these issues did not make him a good guy in general
nor did his not being a good guy in general make him wrong on these issues
you have to be able to think, to understand these concepts
markiv
(1,489 posts)what if David Duke had a weather object on his website, and it said 'rain today' and it did
would that be Klansman rain? would that rain be good for whites, but bad for Jews and African-Americans?
regarless of Putin's positions on some issues, that doesnt mean he cant be right on others
he was on this one - i dont care who hie is or why he said it - he's still right
'American exceptionalism' kills lots of people, and is making us BANKRUPT
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Time-honored deflection and distraction techniques having nothing to do with the debate.
I agree with Putin. American exceptionalism has been dead for a while now, and its corpse is definitely starting to stink badly. Long past time to bury it.
markiv
(1,489 posts)i'm sure your comment has created a crisis at the G20
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #46)
totodeinhere This message was self-deleted by its author.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)I am opposed to any military intervention in Syria whatsoever. That is not McCain's position. Guess you don't read much past the headlines, eh?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Putin's op-ed referenced President Barack Obama's Tuesday address to the nation, in which the president said the United States' desire to prevent further use of chemical weapons in Syria is "what makes us exceptional."
"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation," Putin wrote.
Guess not, eh?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I gind your appropriation of the gay rights issue in Russia to cover up the substance of Putin's position entirely grotesque.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)and tell him how right you think he is. Im sure he'd be thrilled to use a gay person in his next propaganda piece. He thinks your sub-human though, so you never know. Its worth a try.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . and I agree with you 100%!
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)It completely ignores the original post, which, whether you like Putin or not, has some good points in it. The main one is that if the U.S. just decides to go bomb Syria without international support, it will do a lot more hard than good. Specifically, we will be acting as a rogue state and will increase the liklihood that other countries seek nuclear weapons as a deterrant to us bombing them. That's a valid point.
As for the gay issue, it's a lot more complicated than, "Putin hates gays, therefore nothing he says is worth considering."
quinnox
(20,600 posts)nationalism stuff. So any thing even hinting at praise of a foreign leader or saying something not in line with "America, fuck yea!" is taken as personal insult.
Throd
(7,208 posts)The reality is much more nuanced, but for some, critical thinking isn't as fun as poo-flinging.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)wrong with loving one's country - warts and all? With being grateful I live here and not some shithole where I wouldn't be able to leave my house because of violence or because my religion forbids it?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Sad.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I still love America and I'm eternally grateful that my grandparents emigrated here so that I could be born here. But I'd love it even more if we dropped the destructive and evil ideology of American exceptionalism.
Let's face it: NONE of us accepted it consciously. It was practically the air we breathed, and we ingested it almost from birth with our mothers' milk.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I was brought up in the 60s and 70s by two very liberal parents so I was always very well aware that our country isn't perfect by any means. When does pride in one's country become fanatiscism?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)true, yet how it is applied is important also. Hanging people swinging in the breeze because they had the 'wrong' skin color never gave me pride. Having seven stitches to close a wound in my head because I didn't like spiro agnew, AFTER viet nam service did not give me pride. Being called derogatory names because of race, gender or sexual orientation does not give me pride. Having to fight, as an bonified amerikkkan citizen, mind you, for the right to vote, AGAIN, without hassle, does not give me pride. To view a picture of an unarmed 17 year old laying on the ground with a bullet in his heart does not give me pride.This is not exceptionalism, it's hypocrisy of the highest order.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)It amazes me that even part of DU would still buy into it. You'd think the USA! USA! USA! crowd would be over in Freepland and not here.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)you mean by jingoistic, mindless nationalism. What are you referring to?
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I'm somewhat older than you (born in 1946). Here's the Wikipedia definition:
Jingoism is patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.[1] In practice, it is a country's advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, it refers to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to othersan extreme type of nationalism.
The term originated in Britain, expressing a pugnacious attitude toward Russia in the 1870s, and appeared in the American press by 1893.
Etymology
The chorus of a song by G. H. MacDermott (singer) and G. W. Hunt (songwriter) commonly sung in British pubs and music halls around the time of the Russo-Turkish War (18771878) gave birth to the term.[2][3] The lyrics had the chorus:
We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too
We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.
The phrase "by Jingo" was a long-established minced oath, used to avoid saying "by Jesus". Referring to the song, the specific term "jingoism" was coined as a political label by the prominent British radical George Holyoake in a letter to the Daily News on 13 March 1878.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I know the dictionary definition - I just understand know where many seem to be drawing the line at loving their country and when that love becomes fanatical. If it means that we shouldn't call for reform anywhere until we ourselves are perfect, that's a very hypocritical thing around here. Specifically, should any US citizen be bitching about an Israeli occupation until we give the US back to the Native Americans? Should we have only fought the Japanese in WWII and left Germany alone?
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Re "If it means that we shouldn't call for reform anywhere until we ourselves are perfect, that's a very hypocritical thing around here."
I agree with you. I see calling for justice at home and calling for justice overseas, and being equally passionate and sincere about both, as two sides of the same coin.
Re "Specifically, should any US citizen be bitching about an Israeli occupation until we give the US back to the Native Americans? Should we have only fought the Japanese in WWII and left Germany alone?"
Again, why not do both at the same time? That's what I do. Giving the U.S. (the whole country) back to the Native Americans isn't practical or desirable, but we can still do whatever we can to increase their self-sufficiency and quality of life on the few scraps of marginal land they still control or would like to control.
For example: Two days ago I signed a petition asking the government to buy back the site of Wounded Knee and Pine Ridge and turning it over to the Oglalla Sioux. It is currently owned by a greedy profiteering non-Native individual who is asking $4.9 million for it--when the actual assessed value of the land, not counting its priceless cultural and historical value--is $14,000! I kid you not.
This morning I made a small donation to Amnesty International for the assistance of Syrian refugees, which I'm happy to say was sponsored by my heroine Joan Baez. I'm kind of surprised (although I shouldn't be) that with all the talk about those two million Syrian refugees, that there haven't been a lot more high-profile relief drives to help them directly. It seems they are being invoked basically as propaganda fodder, and not being seen as real people.
As far as Israel/Palestine goes I favor a two-state solution. That's way too complicated to get into here, though--in fact it's a whole other DU forum.
Yeah, so I'm a bleeding heart liberal! I don't see that as anything to be ashamed of.
I'm also getting more than a little bit bored with zero-sum arguments.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)zero sum arguments. Nuance has no place in today's politics and that is a real shame. It's nice chatting with someone around my age because we both remember when it wasn't like this. When the loyal opposition was just that. When the two sides could duke it out on the floor and then go out for dinner together. I was raised to do what we can do, to speak out when you see an injustice (which, incidentally started in the 7th grade when my mother wasn't happy with how our social studies textbook glossed over what happened with the Native Americans and mom gave me Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee - teacher was a right winger and was not at all thrilled). The nastiness in Washington has infected all areas of life - I've truly never seen the country this divided.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Stalin says,
"Round up and shoot all the democrats, and then paint the inside of the Kremlin blue."
"Why blue?" Putin asks.
"Ha!" says Stalin. "I knew you wouldn't ask me about the first part."
Right thread for this?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023653222
Who knew that Putin could get some people to accept propaganda as standard? He's precedent setting!!!
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)There is absolutely NOTHING in my OP that is remotely "pro-Putin," ProSense. But this is so pathetically typical of the way you roll.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You're asking why people are dismissing a piece filled with distortions, hypocrisy and misinformation.
We should have all simply accepted it and validated Putins' nonsense.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . that doesn't mean, however, that there isn't some considerable truth in some other parts. And yes, there's a good measure of hypocrisy in it coming from Putin. But part of the point I am making is that we, as Americans, and given our own history, are hardly in any position to judge other countries on their 'hypocrisy.' IF mere hypocrisy is a reason not to consider the truth of what a party is saying, then any pronouncement by any U.S. President ought to be dismissed out of hand.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Why the hell do you think it's appropriate to validate distortions, hypocrisy and misinformation?
It's a damn good thing not everyone is applauding this op-ed.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Hitler wanted high MPG cars. Does that mean I have to love gas-guzzlers?
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Also, are you trying to kick the habit?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)at least in this episode
the only question is
Ginger, or Mary Ann?
farmbo
(3,122 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)Obama: Well, all day long at school I hear how great Putin is at this or how wonderful Putin did that! Putin, Putin, Putin!
Fastcars
(204 posts)At least the trains ran on time.
That Hitler guy had it right on many things. Look at all the great infrastructure projects.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,385 posts)He's a materially involved head-of-state with basic motives that make any statement of principle something less noble than...a statement of principle. The other stereotype we see here is people on the Left who are so consumed with disgust for our global entanglements they'll cheer anyone who lands a rhetorical blow or two that resonates with them, regardless of who's throwing the punch or why.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . so please, tell me what, in Putin's Op-Ed, was factrually and substantively wrong. I'm all ears. (Or eyes.)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,931 posts)markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . the paragraph in which Putin discussed his theory of who is responsible for the attack is a single paragraph out of 18 paragraphs, and isn't even the primary point of his essay.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The entire dispute is over what to do about the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons.
He 's saying nothing to see here, move along now, Assad's got this, chill.
cali
(114,904 posts)isn't the lecture or some of the accurate points he makes, it's the bullshit about Russia's position vis a vis the Syrian government. The claim that Russia isn't supporting the Assad regime is complete bullshit.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . but of course, that's not what people are so up in arms about. They're up in arms because he quite rightfully called us out on our belief in our own moral superiority.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . I said I've seen no one refute the substance of what Putin had to say. And this one point is far from representing the substance of the essay.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)American "exceptionalism" is nothing but fascism.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)to the average American, sucking treasure and blood, giving nothing in return
at least traditional warmongering in ancient times shared the spoils
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Re "at least traditional warmongering in ancient times shared the spoils."
Instead we have the highest level of income inequality since 1928. Fucking parasites!
it is that, and the sheeple faction are the ones who scream the loudest at anyone pointing that part out.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
FSogol
(45,544 posts)markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)As a nation, we are almost pathologically loath to engage in any kind of honest self-examination or reflection about much of anything.
FSogol
(45,544 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)is a simpleminded, cynical, manipulative ploy.
The citizenry is not under assessment.
FSogol
(45,544 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)tell you what
have Obama quit giving us fresh stuff that deserves criticism, and I'll be glad to take a break from criticizing him
i'd love to
markiv
(1,489 posts)such as why did we have proxy wars in south korea and vietnam against china, sacrificing lives limbs and treasure, when we were going to give china the economy anyway
or, why did we clear out one of saudi arabia's enemies in response to a terrorist attack by saudies in our planes
just a few issues, for starters, all part of 'American Exceptionalism'
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)it seems the so-called moderate and centrists of both parties have some common ground.
JohnnyLib2
(11,212 posts)FWIW
Response to markpkessinger (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
markiv
(1,489 posts)through NSA phone logging, 'free' trade agreements and guest worker programs (Obama included)
that take HIS credibility away, also?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If so I have some swampland I want to sell you...
markiv
(1,489 posts)no, it wouldnt surprise me if they did
all i was asserting, it that this is not a land that respects rights either
pot calling kettle black
treestar
(82,383 posts)that organization was not limited by any such things as courts, FISA courts, legislation, or the like.
We don't have to feel inferior over that, even if you put the worst spin on the NSA! There's no way we even touch Russia on those subjects!
markiv
(1,489 posts)more alike, than different
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)To protest the lack of humane treatment. We have practiced torture. Our death penalty is a form of torture.
If you use the civil rights violation as a basis for a national leader not to able to speak, well, neither does the president have room to speak.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and they die slowly in a matter of weeks....while watching their hair and teeth fall out.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I always find this way of thinking interesting, and sometimes it seems to go to this aspect.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)business and I've been to some countries with real nasty regimes. Our system has it's faults (the right-wing has been gaining ground for the last 20 years) but I still love my country and appreciate how much freedom I have in comparison to many, many, countries.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)in our military might? in our skewed income distribution? in our declining standards on just about every scale of civilized nations?
the belief in our exceptionalism explains a lot about why WE do little as our standard of living continues to decline.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)this sort of discussion is not allowed. And as far as our standard of living, while it may have declined, American are fabulously wealthy by comparison to much of the world. Even poor Americans are rich by worldwide standards.
I am not rich, in fact I would probably be considered poor by many people but, I just took a whole car load of perfectly good clothes, household items, etc. to St. Vincent's the other day.
My son is mentally ill and is on disability and while he gets very little money and some food stamps, he does get medical coverage.
So yes, while I criticize much of what goes on in this country, I also believe there are lots of things that are good about us.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)35 in healthcare.
Death rates among new mothers are above those of Cuba.
Free discussion and free thought is far from exclusive to the US. In fact, a whole slew of European nations have that freedom, in fact the country to the south of you does.
No, we are not unique, or special, or city on the hill, or anything else. The Empire is closer to collapse than I realized. Perhaps then Americans will learn the lesson every imperial citizen before us has learned.
People need to leave this country and visit others more often.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)I am too tired people do need to leave this country to really understand how the rest of the world lives. I don't think most americans have a clue...clearly.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Cha
(297,774 posts)I love living where I do and I love that Obama is the President. I actually appreciate the job is he is doing.
it's a constant battle to get things done and keep the Koch teabagger party at bay but our Democracy is worth for.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)But there are also many where it would be and is permitted. We may have been unique at a certain point in our history, but we are not unique in that regard anymore.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)an evil man like Putin.
American does have problem, but President Obama didn't create them.
markiv
(1,489 posts)sorry, my ears are open to opinions other than his at this moment
unless he just forbade dissent
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and Obama is GOOD. how can you possibly expect to have a meaningful discussion when THIS is as far a many americans can go. putin = evil Obama = good it's impossible,
markiv
(1,489 posts)as far as I'm concerned
there are times you have to trust people, but it is always my preference to trust my own eyes on issues
i will never understand those who wont
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)all freaking day, it would still be bullshit.
Tveil
(108 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)WCLinolVir
(951 posts)It is so sad reading these comments where half of you can't go beyond a simplistic duality. I feel like I'm talking to four year olds.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)get used to it.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)particular.
Forbidding dissent may be closer than we think.....probably new
keywords at the NSA to detect such. Just look around here at
the immediate pouncing on dissent. How things have changed.
edit: correct spelling
2naSalit
(86,824 posts)dissent bashing... like that of the Occupy Movement:
a discussion on that today...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023655085
Amazing how some brush issues aside for the sake of misguided hero worship of a sort.
Pluralism of a kind not predicted or anticipated until recently or is it an old jalopy with a new paint job?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You realize people abroad think that of American Presidents? Why don't you tell us exactly where the essay was wrong in substance? Did you read far enough to realize Putin credited the US for the UN and the Security Council? Or that went over your head?
Perhaps you also missed the references to the International order we were once seen as champions off, even when we also ignored it at times, but we are no longer seen that way.
The world, for real, is far more complex than personalities. Don't bother responding, you are going straight to the children's wing, where I can't hear you and la, la, a are appropriate responses.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Putin pointing out that an attack on Syria without a UN resolution or a direct attack on the US would be an "act of aggression" is a bit rich. There are plenty of international politicians and statesmen whom I respect and would not dismiss and who have said or would say things very similar to what Putin wrote. If I still fall into the "ugly American" category, so be it.
Also, this would be a little like a similar lecture coming from Bush about acts of aggression - perhaps accurate on some level - but hard to take, nonetheless, considering the source.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)next target is Israel?
Puh-leaze.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . .it may very well have been Assad. That isn't what I"m talking about. The major thrust of Putin's essay, and the thing people are so up in arms about, is his calling out of America on its absurd belief in its own moral purity. Yes, there are things in the essay that are pure, self-serving bullshit. There are also things that I would expect Putin to say as Assad's ally. But those aren't the parts so many people are feeling stung by. People are feeling stung by Putin's criticism of America's hypocritical and arrogant self-righteousness == a point about which he is not entirely wrong. And even his own hypocrisy, which is considerable, doesn't alter the truth of that part of what he wrote, painful though it may be to read coming from him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of the rebels for Assad's gas attack (combined with gratuitous pandering to the AIPAC crowd) while obfuscating Russia's role in enabling Assad's atrocities is indeed central to understanding that essay.
Out of one side of his mouth he says "run everything through the UN" and with the other he says "NYET" whenever anyone proposes that the UN actually do something.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)NO...you don't. and since you don't, you cannot claim with certainty that is was not committed by the so-called Saudi-funded rebels.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There is zero evidence that it was the rebels, and Syria's chief sponsor claiming it was the rebels is blatant propaganda, being duly swallowed by the "US is always wrong" crowd on the left.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)IRAQ being a prime example.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The arguments Putin is making to blame the rebels resemble those made by Bush in saying Saddam had WMDs.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)what does assad gain by attacking his own citizens? it seems that the so-called rebels have far more to gain, fi only casting suspicion on the Syrian government. yep...the credible analysts were all correct about Iraq, but unfortunately, Bush, Inc ignored them and presented not so credible analysis instead. and we know the result of that. is it any different this time? I suppose time will tell.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The benefit of using chemical weapons is that it kills your enemies and terrorizes them. Which is how the Baath party rolls.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)I haven't seen any definitive evidence. but I do believe the rebels benefit more than Assad.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)and people like General Clapper, then they ALL agree that Assad is behind EVERY use of Chem Weapons in Syria.
Of course, for some discerning Americans capable of critical thought,
the official proclamations US Government stopped being a Credible Source
a long time ago, and even the US Government has admitted they have no proof, only a good guess that Assad was behind the Gas Attacks.
At NO time has the US Government stated that Assad is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and has the proof in hand.
PROOF, beyond the Shadow of a Doubt is the necessary criteria before state sponsored executions,
and should be doubly so for starting New WARS,
or for Sending a Message by killing another country's people.
Here is a "credible analysis":
<snip>
All of that said, note that the U.S. has qualified every statement it has made about the situation. it is "undeniable" that chemical weapons had been used in Syria and he set out a case against Assad without directly blaming the regime for the attack.
During his daily press briefing Tuesday, : "There is also very little doubt, and should be no doubt for anyone who approaches this logically, that the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on August 21st outside of Damascus."
Jean Pascal Zanders, who worked for the European Union Institute for Security Studies from 2008 to 2013 and concentrated on the non-proliferation of chemical weapons says until the U.N. investigative team presents its report, "we need to keep our minds open that the events of last Wednesday could in whole or partially have alternative explanations."
"In fact, we the public know very little beyond the observation of outward symptoms of asphyxiation and possible exposure to neurotoxicants, despite the mass of images and film footage," Zanders added. "For the West's credibility, I think that governments should await the results of the U.N. investigation."
<more>
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216172145/is-it-possible-the-syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons
Now THAT is a "Credible Analysis" and NOT the hyped stories YOU and YOURS have been flinging around DU.
The truth is, WE DON"T KNOW WHO used these weapons in Syria,
and until we do KNOW, it is wildly irresponsible to be fomenting new WARS and Sending Messages to The World.
We already Sent Messages in Iraq and Libya,
and that hasn't worked out so well.
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I believe this Consortium News article was discussed on DU a few days ago. I recall some obstructionist (maybe you?) throwing a great big red herring about Larry Johnson, one of the signers of this open letter to Pres. Obama.
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with zero first hand knowledge of any facts.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Those who do not want to "know" something will never "know" it. If the UN were to determine the regime's responsibility, there would still be some who do not "know" who was responsible.
Tea party types will never "know" there is global warming, because they do not want it to be true. They will never "know" that Obamacare is good for the country (if it proves to be) because they do not want it to be true. The same is true with progressive taxes, corporate regulation, immigration reform and others. They know what policy they favor and evidence either fits into their world view or it is rejected, so they never "know" anything that is inconsistent with the policy they support.
But with respect to Syria, responsibility for the chemical attack is not the only issue here. The real issue is what, if anything, can be done about it and what role the US, the UN and other countries should play in that response or lack thereof.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)actually I agree, however, I still don't know that the government is responsible. and until that is established as FACT, all the rest is speculation.
pampango
(24,692 posts)only issue here."
"... until that is established as FACT, all the rest is speculation."
How will that be established as FACT?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)I am 54, so I'm used to hearing my government lie to me, then I find out the real truth later. it's gotten better with the internet, however, unlike some here, I still do not trust my government. so here's what I suspect: a fact will be established, and later, we will find that the fact was not actually factual.
I was thinking about this last night, and wondering if generational differences have something to do with the government trust factor. younger people know about bush, inc and Iraq, but they may not know about all the other atrocities either committed by or aided and abetted by the good old USA. I have to admit: I am a bit paranoid when it comes to "official" versions of anything.
Sequoia
(12,461 posts)Remember when the CIA was responsible for bringing down Iran and kicking out the elected leader and put in the Shaw? Are we 100% SURE Assad's people did this to their citizens? 100 percent, not speculation, not guessing but 100 percent sure. By attacking them we will still destroy people....again.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)He (as Prime Minister) sent his troops into Georgia in 2008 to support a rebel movement fighting the Georgian government.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)correct?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)Certainly more than Obama, and probably than Bush too. There is good evidence he has had awkward journalists killed.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)The Georgian President thought that the US would back his move like they did in Kosovo months earlier. Condi discussed it with him, and he misunderstood. After Georgia killed some Russians, then the tanks rolled. They didn't flatten Tiblisi nor destroy the government.
If some disaffected group tried to reclaim US territory militarily, I doubt it would go to the UN before there was a US response.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)Kosovo, 'months earlier'? Kosovo was in 1999. And in that, the Serbian government was killing Kosovans, who wanted independence; the Serbian government was in the equivalent position of the Georgian one. You have failed at both geography and history. There seems no point in continuing this until you have understood the basic facts.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)From Feb 2008. I remember it well. S. Ossetia was in Aug 2008 - 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021700176.html
Vlad wasn't happy about it, and basically said, 'Don't try for any more territory.' His credibility was on the line when Saakashvili tried to take S. Ossetia, hence the tanks. Basic facts? Failure indeed.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)From that article:
Serbia hadn't had control of Kosovo since 1999. The declaration of independence made almost no difference. No fighting happened because of it. The NATO force is still there. The UN is still there.
"His credibility was on the line" - and isn't that just what he now criticised Obama for? Saying his credibility was on the line, and considering an attack on a country? That's exactly what Putin did in 2008.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)And it did indeed make a difference to Putin. It was Vlad's domino theory. Since one went down, he drew his own Red Line, lest the Bush Administration back freedom fighters to declare independence anywhere there was a dispute.
Saakashvili didn't make his decision in a vacuum, as the article makes clear. Vlad had to preserve his tough guy image, his credibility.
I never intimated that Vlad wasn't hypocritical.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)which is meaningless twaddle. South Ossetia was already Georgian territory; the rebels were in there, wanting independence from Georgia.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Kosovo was made independent in 2008, not 1999, that is a basic fact, with which you tried to insult me. I will assume you now concede that one.
Saakashvili didn't go to the UN, nor did Russia in retaliation, nor has the US several times.
BainsBane
(53,074 posts)which is a bold-faced lie. There has been a great deal of evidence disputing that. I can't even believe we have to entertain this kind of bullshit. How can anyone who cares about peace or civil liberties respect Putin? That is COMPLETELY hypocritical.
This fixation on personalities over policy is the lowest level of political discourse imaginable. Why people feel they have to defend Putin and Assad to oppose US intervention astounds me. It's like this is all a Hollywood movie and people have decided men who run oppressive regimes are the good guys in the white hats in order to bolster their opposition to US intervention. They don't like Obama's policy, and for some bizarre reason they feel they have to pick the other side. The same thing happened with the NSA story. It became a battle over Snowden and Greenwald rather than the issue of NSA surveillance. Apparently too many are incapable of discussing actual issues and instead fixate on the popularity of individuals. Then the whole dispute becomes more about opposing camps on DU than anything else. It advances no understanding and accomplishes nothing. What a colossal waste of time.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)my country is always right types. Probably because I don't know any teabaggers.
Since you call Putin a critic, I will treat his opinion as I would any other critics' - thanks for your opinion, I'll decide for myself.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Which it was not. This was an advanced college essay, choke full of historical and legal references. But I agree with you, the reaction is that of spoiled brats. These spoiled brats can't understand that regardless of the substance, this was a historic moment in international diplomacy.
And Mark, this goes beyond the ugly American, well beyond it. It's entered full force into cultish behavior.
And when they confuse "remarkable piece of writing," which it was for the nature and location, historical in fact, with admiration for Putin, you know you are truly dealing with children.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Busy putting these folks on ignore.
I really don't have time for that.
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)Wow. Very well said
alcina
(602 posts)both to you and the original op. Although I rarely post, I read as much as I can here each day. And each day I am more disillusioned (and sadly, less surprised) by the willingness of people -- on this site, in this country, even among my closer acquaintances -- to shout down debate or even quietly consider alternative viewpoints.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I suspect not. I suspect, like most, you would say even a broken clock is right twice a day. And then move on to some other topic.
But many on DU seem to revel in the idea that America is 'a bad, baaad boy' who deserves a spanking.
America is not always right. Neither is Russia. Now tell both countries to stop vetoing important U.N. resolutions and we'll see who occupies the moral high ground then.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . and you know it.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)And frankly, it's going to continue to be a problem until the US disappears. Nobody wants to believe they live in a country that terrorizes the rest of the world. They have to own part of that if they do.
The irony is, most people even when they realize we're going the wrong direction want to believe this is a recent development. It's not.
This country was born on the wrong footing(exploitation) and that hasn't changed over 200 years.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but I take one exception to what you said.
It is going to continue until the Empire goes away.
Whether the US will survive as a continental state is a good question, but assuming it does, I suspect what happened to every other Imperial citizen across history will happen here. Americans will learn just how average and truly non exceptional they truly are, with some dead enders still talking longingly about Pax Americana, like some older brits talk about Pax Britannia over a pint of beer.
I am not sure the US will survive as a nation state. There are way too many cracks in her anymore. And all those nullification laws popping all over the place give me all but a warm fuzzy.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)If you ignore it, it will eventually kill you. I recommend large doses of Howard zinn for the cure. (Sorry about the lower case "z"-for some reason, my capital "z" is non-existent all of a sudden!). Must be time for a new keyboard.
WCLinolVir
(951 posts)"But isn't this so typical of America (and Americans)? We convince ourselves that we inhabit some lofty moral plane where America is, always and everywhere, the 'good guy' and anybody who opposes us (or points out our rather glaring hypocrisies) is, always and everywhere, the very incarnation of evil (or the 'bad guy').
This has to be the most simplistic thinking I've seen in a while.
"defensive moral posture "
Sorry-you just outdid yourself.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Putin is not a credible messenger. I don't care what he has to say. Fuck him and fuck his little lecture.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . in the eyes of many, or possibly even most, Americans. For a huge swath of the American public, the mere fact that a person -- ANY person -- dared to say such things and to call us out on our contradictions would be grounds for labeling that individual as being "anti-American" and casting him or her into the outer darkness for all eternity.
Rex
(65,616 posts)We are better than everyone else in the world.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)because I don't particularly care what he's got to say. When your own country is that much of a mess, it's hard to take you seriously.
It IS interesting to see the same people that screamed that we don't have to be perfect to point out the flaws in others suddenly insisting that one does need to be perfect to point out flaws in others. I suspect it has to do with who's doing the pointing and who's being pointed at, as usual.
Kuroneko
(42 posts)In this case.
His criticisms are not about his values, but about USA values. You are judged only in rapport of what you profess.
Then what Putin is doing in Russia is irrelevant to this editorial.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Putin has his 'ugly American side' aswell.
wouldsman
(94 posts)Mark, I agree. It saddens me to see members of this progressive community not being able to receive a message due to such intense bias against the author. If the op-ed would have been written by a centrist Republican [Powell?] this community would have been praising them for finally coming to their senses. Had it been written by a solid lefty [Warren, Sanders, etc] we would have just heard a murmur of "yep, yep, yep, uhuh, yes".
The rejection of Putins words just clearly points out the problem with U.S. exceptionalism. Rejection of obvious truths if told to us by one of our so called enemies.
Cold war is over people. Time to wake up.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)I just would like to add that it's not only Cold-war related russophobia. Any kind of criticism towards the US is answered in similar manner.
Think about Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa...
Any world leader that tries to say the truth about the US misguided, criminal foreign policy are quickly transformed into targets of US severe media demonization campaigns.
Which reinforces the notion that this IS indeed American Exceptionalism.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Remember the uproar (mostly among idiot rwing asses) when PBO bowed to the Japanese emperor (if I recall correctly)?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Terrible when it fights back...
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)Boehner's comments would fit right in with some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/boehner-insulted-putin-comments-20236647
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)You don't like at lot of DU; there's no need to stoop to pointless insults to make it clear.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Putin discussing America's shortcomings is like George Bush discussing education failings.
He has no credibility, he made a mistake in choosing himself as the deliverer of such a message, as it will have a negative effect.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Adult discussion.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Why are people so aggrieved that Putin may not get the shout-outs some of you think he deserves? Not everyone agrees, and some of you revel in that when it comes to the POTUS.
But nice of you to go to bat for Putin and try to shame those who don't applaud his words.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,243 posts)muted aggrandizement of a jerk just because he gave quarter to a sub-culture hero. Any other time, DU would've erupted in outrage at the blatant horrific crackdown on Russia's LGBT community. At any other time, there would've been calls for solidarity. Some have even tried to minimize that savage crackdown by falsely equating Obama having a gospel singer and a preacher on stage. Nice try.
Keep digging. I think Putin may help Obama more than he intended. I realize that many DU'ers come from different parts of the world, and have loyalties to their homelands, but this "America Sucks" narrative that's been adopted by some is eerie. The Tsarnaev Bros, who came to this country and took advantage of it's education system, it's welfare system, etc. grew to hate their adopted country, and showed their "gratitude"l in the most horrible way imaginable.
We are exceptional. We are the world's melting pot. I wonder what our immigration stats are compared to those of Mother Russia? How much diversity can Putin actually boast? We know what happens to his opposition.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)We have one of the worst health care systems in the developed world. Our infant mortality rate is among the highest. Our life expectancy is lower by developed world standards. Millions of Americans are hungry and living in poverty and the gap between rich and poor keeps increasing. We have one of the highest murder rates in the developed world and we have one of the highest incarceration rates. And I could list a lot more reasons why we are not exceptional but you get the idea.
Yes Putin is a thug. His attack on the Russian LGBT community is unconscionable. But he is right about American exceptionalism. And the more that we keep being distracted by the Syrian crisis the more we will be putting off dealing with the problems that I listed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the absolute nature of our First Amendment and the rest of the bill of rights. We could do better on all other things if we paid attention, but we have the power to do that. Other countries' citizens may be further down on the lists without rights or power to change anything.
Even the UK has some times when it will ban books, etc. That cannot happen there. They may have a health plan. But they are willing to sometimes cross the line on freedom of speech and association. That comes first.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)We can't call ourselves exceptional if we don't have both. And while freedom of speech and association are important, I suspect that an American who is going to bed hungry at night (if they even have a bed) while the 1% get richer and richer might be more concerned with having a full stomach and a roof over their head.
treestar
(82,383 posts)or you can't protest the 1% having most of the wealth. Where you can't protest that, they not only keep it, it is far more entrenched. We can attempt to change that without getting put in jail.
We could have health care if we convinced others to vote for people who will vote for it, but the thing is we have the freedom of speech to be able to try. That comes first.
The communist countries in theory had health plans, but if they weren't working very well, the people did not have the freedom to protest or attempt to make any changes.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)Canada and Western Europe? Yes, I know the Republicans and Bluedog Democrats would block single payer. But as long as we them in Congress then we are not very high up on the exceptionalism list.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)A simple primer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_in_Boston
Britain does not tamper with freedom of association, nor do they ban books anymore than the US does. Porn laws are different. Is that what you mean?
treestar
(82,383 posts)And would easily be overturned in the courts.
Britain did ban a book in the 80s. It was about their MI-5. I remember because a friend of mine went straight to buy it at the airport. (Banning a book just makes it desirable to most people). The airport she went to buy it in was in the US. As soon as she got the US, she could read what she wanted to read.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,243 posts)Then we'll talk. All the problems listed don't compare to hundreds being blown up daily because they might be a different religion. Mass killings aren't a daily occurence here. And as far as I know, our government has never unleashed nerve gas on its citizens. I'll take the US over Russia & Syria any day.
As the world's #1 economy, and last remaining super power, we do have our issues, and there are myriad reasons for them. We are the most ethnically/racially/religiously diverse country on the planet, and while you see only the bad, I continue to see the good. I just heard on an interview on NPR, by a Iraqi refugee family, who really miss their home, but are glad to be "safe". If you're not "safe", the rest doesn't really matter.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)American exceptionalism, we should compare ourselves with other Western industrialized democracies, not with Third World Countries. And when compared with Western Europe and Canada for instance we come up very lacking in so many ways.
On edit - We may not have mass killings as a daily occurrence here, but as I said previously our murder rate is one of the highest in the Western World. It is several times higher than most European countries.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,243 posts)And that has nothing to do with the "Third World".
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)real wages when adjusted for inflation have been going down, not up. Some #1 economy. And the last remaining superpower? Yes, we have the most missiles and bombs and spend as a percentage of GNP more on our defense budget than any other country but personally I'd rather see much of that defense budget spent of fixing the many problems that I listed.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,243 posts)couldn't concentrate long enough to sustain the movement. On the other hand, google "EU economic problems", and you'll find the consensus to be the weighted social safety net is quickly becoming a thing of the past. It's simply shocking that former Socialist and Labor Parties are being thrown out, and replaced with hardcore rightwing nutjob governments who preach austerity and closing off their borders.
I think we're going to see a much more market based economy when they finally emerge from the crisis. As much as people complain about the inequities, the very mention of socialism in this country brings out all the gun totin' nutjob whackos. Take your passion to the streets, you don't have to convince me of anything.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Some DUers come from Latin America.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,243 posts)Some come from Free Republic. What's your point?
treestar
(82,383 posts)We have no laws allowing any censorship. That's the very reason Putin can get published here. He's a foreigner, yet nothing in our press stops us from access to his views. Whereas the people there, not so much. I don't know why they put it with it. They knew what it was like to be oppressed, were freed by the fall of the USSR and are letting it happen again!
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . I guess I wasn't really as clear in my OP as I should have been. I am NOT talking here about Putin's claims concerning who is or is not responsible for the attacks. On that score, as Assad's ally/sponsor, I would pretty much expect he would say it was the rebels regardless of what the evidence showed. Many have jumped on the OP, apparently thinking I buy Putin's claims. But in the context of Putin's essay, there is one -- ONE -- very short paragraph, out of 18 paragraphs in total (or 58 out of a 1,068 words in total), dealing with the issue of which side was the perpetrator. Clearly, simply declaring Assad's government innocent of the attack was not the primary objective in writing the essay.
So what does Putin discuss in the other 17 paragraphs? He discusses:
- the history and mission of the U.N., and the potential damage to that mission if a large, powerful country like the United States goes around the U.N. and undertakes action unilaterally;
- some possible or likely unintended negative consequences that could result from a military strike against Syria (all of which possible or likely unintended consequences have been raised by numerous pundits and politicians here in the U.S., not to mention here on DU);
- the nature of of the conflict in Syria, and the various parties involved; (actually, these two paragraphs are worth quoting here:
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all. - a (rather disingenuous) claim that Russia is "not protecting the Syrian government, but international law"; but then he goes on to point out, quite accurately, that under international law, unilateral force is only permitted in self-defense or with the approval of the U.N. Security Council;
- the fact that U.S. military intervention in the internal affairs of other countries has become a pattern with the U.S., and reminds us of how futile those efforts typically have been (neither of which point can be reasonably denied or refuted);
- the importance of remaining committed to a diplomatic approach working towards a political, not military, solution; (again, pretty hard to argue with)
- and finally, his comment in response to President Obama's appeal in his speech to 'American Exceptionalism'. Putin's words on this point are spot on, even though he may not be the person we think should be telling us:
And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States policy is what makes America different. Its what makes us exceptional. It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lords blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Finally, to those who would suggest that Putin's own misdeeds and unsavory character mean that we should disregard anything and everything he says (or writes): if that were followed as a general rule of thumb in our dealings with leaders of other countries, it would render the entire art of diplomacy (except when dealing with trusted allies) a complete and utter impossibility.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and make diplomacy impossible.
The art of diplomacy, why that was a remarkable piece, is to be able to talk to those you like and those you do not like. The latter group is that more important.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)Thank you!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Much of his argument rests on that assertion.
What if it's proven false and it's demonstrated that Putin was intentionally misleading?
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . .about the fact -- and it IS a fact and remains a fact whether or not Putin's theory as to who is responsible for the attacks stands or falls -- that it is a violation of international law (and, I would add, every BIT as much of a violation as the use of chemical weapons) for a country to use force against another country absent a direct attack or authorization by the U.N. Security Council. And neither does the rest of the Op-Ed rest on whether or not it was the Syrian government or the rebels who were responsible for the chemical attack.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)It's a big deal if a head of state used them as that makes him a war criminal.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)This is not about chemical weapons, at all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023657219
And by the way, if you want to attack on the essay there is a place to do it where it is actually easy. Forget the weapons.
http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/13985
That said, his criticism should be taken for what is worth and he made some very valid points.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"and finally, his comment in response to President Obama's appeal in his speech to 'American Exceptionalism'. Putin's words on this point are spot on, even though he may not be the person we think should be telling us"
...it wasn't. The problem with jumping on the anti-American bandwagon over Putin's op-ed is exactly because he mischaracterized the President's point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023650068
The President's statement was aspirational, and this is too big and complex a country for Putin's misinterpretation.
From the President's speech:
America is not the worlds policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. Thats what makes America different. Thats what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023642111
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)say. People do not trust him and think anything he says, even things that might sound good, has an ulterior motive behind it.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Of expressing reverse American exceptionalism. We are JUST the worst humans the world has ever come up with.
Take off the blinders and realize Obama critics will latch onto anything to defend their position including disingenuous missives from a violent and corrupt Russian dictator.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)It's not that Putin is a good guy and Obama is a bad guy. Nobody thinks that.
What's pathetic is that a guy who is as unsavory as Putin is in a position to criticize the American President on the world stage, and be taken seriously.
And he will be, whether those trying to spin that fact as misplaced admiration for Putin wish to acknowledge it or not.
It's not Russia threatening an illegal war here.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--and wrong on another. This never, ever happens!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)So its not an "ugly American" trait to dismiss him.
Progressive dog
(6,921 posts)Of course Americans shouldn't oppose the use of poison gas by a Putin favored regime, that would be American exceptionalism. We should hang our heads in shame for every claim made against us. We must improve our attitudes.
Probably because I must be an American exceptionalist, I think that Putin should support the Conventions on Chemical Weapons instead of supporting the brutal Assad regime.