Russia to temporarily withdraw from Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe

[Heresson]

Ban Serb and teh evil spam will disappear

[Ming]

Originally posted by Heresson
Ban Serb and teh evil spam will disappear

Actually... I was thinking of restricting him, and then banning you and adding a PCR, because you have been warned in the past about playing stupid games.

And next time you join in... you will be.

[Patroklos]

You forgot to close the thread!

Go ahead Etchy, if you got something else I roll with it.

[The Vagabond]

Noteworthy article on what is really going on in Russian-American relations. By Stephen F. Cohen. In fact, it contains many things said out here on Poly in Russia's defense. If you strictly adhere to the Washington Post line on the issue, skip the reading. But if you really want to understand something beyond what your mainstream media instil in you, this is just for you.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/cohen

[Ecthy]

I hate anti-mainstrem rhetorics in internet discussions. It makes the entire issue lose all its worthwileness.

Apart from that, I find the continuedly used comparison to the pre-1991 world order by referencing to the term "Cold War" extremely unhelpful in analysing strategic situations and judging the behaviour of countries.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I hate anti-mainstrem rhetorics in internet discussions. It makes the entire issue lose all its worthwileness.

So we should limit ourselves to the mainstream stamps?

Apart from that, I find the continuedly used comparison to the pre-1991 world order by referencing to the term "Cold War" extremely unhelpful in analysing strategic situations and judging the behaviour of countries.

But what if it is this term that most adequately grasps the situation...

Besides, the author clearly states that now it's not quite the same cold war as it was before. It's also a cold war, but different on some key aspects.

[Ecthy]

1. Bring up non-mainstream stuff if you must, but do acknowledge that any discussion needs common grounds. That article isn't anti-mainstream anyway, as in it doesn't involveconspiracy theories, mystical connections or appeals to long-dead emotions in any way. It's a certain point of view properly put in a respected paper.

2. His reasoning has holes. He tries to draw parallels but it still isn't quite the same stuff. Russia IS a lot weaker than the USSR was, the ideological difference IS less significant etc. pp.

Besides, the term 'cold war' more than demoninates a historical pattern in international relations. It also carries conotatios of an emotional sort. And it has a relation to "the past", as in "you're using cold war rhetorics so you're backwards". To properly get a grip of what goes on you should stick to the observations themselves not make an effort to put it into comparison with stuff long past.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I hate anti-mainstrem rhetorics in internet discussions. It makes the entire issue lose all its worthwileness.

Apart from that, I find the continuedly used comparison to the pre-1991 world order by referencing to the term "Cold War" extremely unhelpful in analysing strategic situations and judging the behaviour of countries.

the Nation is quite mainstream, theyve been toing the stalinist line for generations.

[Ecthy]

No experience with the Nation here, but the Wiki article on it says they're lefty. Does that equal stalinist on Wiki?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ecthy
1. Bring up non-mainstream stuff if you must, but do acknowledge that any discussion needs common grounds. That article isn't anti-mainstream anyway, as in it doesn't involveconspiracy theories, mystical connections or appeals to long-dead emotions in any way. It's a certain point of view properly put in a respected paper.

All right then. Good for this article.

2. His reasoning has holes. He tries to draw parallels but it still isn't quite the same stuff. Russia IS a lot weaker than the USSR was, the ideological difference IS less significant etc. pp.

But he accounts for these differences! He explicitly points out how the present cold war is different from the old one.

Besides, the term 'cold war' more than demoninates a historical pattern in international relations. It also carries conotatios of an emotional sort. And it has a relation to "the past", as in "you're using cold war rhetorics so you're backwards". To properly get a grip of what goes on you should stick to the observations themselves not make an effort to put it into comparison with stuff long past.

'Cold war' is just a term to describe certain type of relations between the states. The (geo)political phenomenon described by this term really exists in nature. So if you don't want to use the term 'cold war', you have to invent another term (to name it differently). But I just don't see why to do that. One can always make a distinction between that great Cold War of the past, and a new cold war.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the Nation is quite mainstream, theyve been toing the stalinist line for generations.

Sticking labels on proponents of a different point of view is not quite democratic a practice by itself.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthy
No experience with the Nation here, but the Wiki article on it says they're lefty. Does that equal stalinist on Wiki?

wiki article's a whitewash.

When a group of non-commie lefties (schlesinger, hook, Arendt, etc) denounced BOTH Nazism and Stalinism as totalitarian in '38, the editor of the Nation said the term should only be used for fascism. She DID express her unhappiness at the show trials of '38 - it would have been impossible to maintain any credibility without doing that, and most anti-communist or Trotskyite lefties in the US had given up on the USSR well before that - we see that cover still works, as in the Wiki article. They were consistently friendly to the USSR, including through the cold war.

Maybe fellow travelers is a better description, or "anti-anti-communist"

And yes, they are a well established magazine (founded in 1865 by abolitionists) , and the voice of a certain part
of the American left, do definitely "mainstream" in that sense.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond



Sticking labels on proponents of a different point of view is not quite democratic a practice by itself.

even where those labels are accurate?

In a democracy youre allowed to criticize those you disagree with. Its the STATE thats not allowed to interfere with speech.

Youve got a lot to learn about democracy.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


even where those labels are accurate?

In a democracy youre allowed to criticize those you disagree with. Its the STATE thats not allowed to interfere with speech.

There is a huge difference between sticking labels a priori and a posteriori.

Youve got a lot to learn about democracy.

You too. All of us do.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


There is a huge difference between sticking labels a priori and a posteriori.
.

you think Ive never read the friggin Nation magazine? I read the Nation when you guys thought Andropov was your savior.