Putin's Counter Revolution

Sun Mar 16 19:31:14 CDT 2014

 Curtis Lemay is not a talk show host, but I don't recall making such a comparison before at all, let alone on a regular basis and I was talking about your atomic weapons theory which sounds nuts to me. Still I should have held my tongue with personal comparisons. I apologize, and don't want to start an insult war. Obviously this Ukraine thing seems very morally clear to you and it doesn't to me.
I just think it is in everyone's best interest if it doesn't become a war which will result in more suffering than any promised deliverance. 
  If Russia should be punished shouldn't the US be punished over the  Iraq invasion which looks about a million times worse to me if you compare the offenses by the loss of human life.
  From my POV we are being at least as aggressive as Russia. Why is is it the US's place to propitiate a coup and appoint the interim leader?
As far as punishing Russia, they could punish right back, and kick off some serious economic repercussions
If the Ukraine is so sovereign maybe they should solve their own economic problems instead of bouncing back and forth between sugar daddies.  Oh Russia I love it when you do me with all that sweet crude. Oh EU and Mr America, you have such a big manly banking system.

Yes I am an idealist if by that you mean an advocate of democratic or consensus based  peaceable conflict resolution. I don't regard it as realistic to bully and bomb people and expect good to come from it.

On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:34 PM, alice malice wrote:

> My reading of it is honest and is supported by the facts and by
> history. You are naive and idealistic.  Anytime someone here shows you
> the facts you call them a right wing talk show host. Why is that?
> Can't you argue the facts? The agreement that Russia signed was not
> nullified by the change in government. Ukraine is a sovereign state
> and was promised protection if it surrendered the weapons. Putin
> violated the agreement. Now he will have to pay the price. How is that
> a right wing position? Should thugs like Putin be allowed to threaten
> their neighbors? Is this what Left Wingers support? No. The world
> needs to defend Ukraine. Not because it has a government we admire or
> hope to see succeed, but because Russia is threatening the peace and
> Putin must pay a price for his aggression.  This is a sensible and
> logical approach, the one most likely to be implemented.
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>> The agreement was made with an elected government that is gone. What they have there in Ukraine was made up last week.  Your theory is nutty anyway , just utterly paranoid true believer armageddon stuff . You sound like Rush Limbaugh or Curtis LeMay.
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 12:23 PM, alice malice wrote:
>> 
>>> They will. Of course they will. The spread can't be stopped. Brasil is
>>> deep into it. Who or what wil threaten there interests and security
>>> in the future is hard to say, but we can be sure that it will happen.
>>> 
>>> The logic is supported by history. Read that chapter from M-D. Loose
>>> fish will be made fast.
>>> 
>>> Land, like the islands off Argentina (remember that?), resources,
>>> fishing rights, water...air space....
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ukraine agreed to give them up and look  what happened there. Even
>>> Putin would have to think twice if all those nukes were still in
>>> Ukraine.
>>> 
>>> It's expensive. The American Empire will make them pay dearly for it,
>>> but, as you say, logic, ego-politics, will drive the spread of nukes
>>> on a global scale.
>>> 
>>> The anti-proliferation objective may continue a pace, as weapons are
>>> dismantled, bu the spread of weapons, of nukes, can't be stopped.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:34 AM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> And by that logic, Venezuela, and most of Latin America, for that matter,
>>>> should nuke up to defend themselves against the US tendency to depose and/or
>>>> murder elected presidents.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/17/usa.venezuela
>>>> 
>>>> LK
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Morris
>>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2014 10:45 AM
>>>> To: alice malice
>>>> Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org"
>>>> Subject: Re: Putin's Counter Revolution
>>>> 
>>>> You think if Ukrane had nukes that would have changed the current situation
>>>> in Ukraines favor? So a new government in Kiev would have threatened to
>>>> launch the Big Ones if Russia stepped into Crimea?  That sounds like crazy
>>>> talk. Nukes versus boots on ground? God save us from that equation.
>>>> 
>>>> On Sunday, March 16, 2014, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> What's was needed, as Mearsheimer argued convincingly only a few years
>>>>> ago, was a greater nuclear deterrent; he was right that Ukraine needed a
>>>>> nuclear arsenal to defend itself against Russia's superior conventional
>>>>> army. Water under the bridge.  But the west has to punish Putin now. Punish
>>>>> his markets and economy. Let him have the mess in Syria. Iran won't turn
>>>>> back now. Move to defend and strengthen NATO, and punish that murdering
>>>>> thug.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sunday, March 16, 2014, Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With regard to the geopolitical aspects of the crisis, this may be of
>>>>>> interest:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/opinion/getting-ukraine-wrong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>> 
>>>> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> 
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l