dagblog - Comments for "China hasn't followed Russia on disinformation — yet"

"Spurious"? I read the

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 06:49:00 +0000

In reply to I probably went on and off

"Spurious"? I read the fucking article you whined about no one reading and gave you specifics to respond to. Burtina, Manafort's case, Putin's decade long billion dollar hacking & illegal influence effort, and supporting Syria's use of chemical weapons/attacks on ccivilians vs the US *not* overthrowing Syria and making a peaceful nuclear treaty with Iran. Both sides don't do it nearly the same.

So you post something, whine about it, but dont answer serious questions. (Or maybe you want to play the spurious " I dont agree with everything I linked to" game). Yep, you shit the bed. Embarrassment. Followed by "it's past my bedtime" and "i'll be travelling, catch you later".

I probably went on and off

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 06:25:20 +0000

In reply to Then set the record straight,

I probably went on and off that subject looking at different comments and knocked off the bold highlighting and so missed it until later. But regardless, I would owe you no apology for just ignoring your comment which I correctly called spurious. I never “excused” Putin for the things you accused me of and you know that is the truth and therefore your comment is a case of intellectual dishonesty. That is the most polite way I can put it. And, I am through for the night so you can have the last word. You should try not to embarrass yourself.

Then set the record straight,

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 05:37:00 +0000

In reply to Partly because it is past

Then set the record straight, please - it seemed earlier you found Putin the global adult in the room fighting off war-mongering, were supportive of his freedom fighting in Dinbas and annexation of Crimea,, and just a couple days ago it was another bout of "hysteria" about Russia with mealy-mouthed "both sides do it" (which is true if Putin owns Trump especially, not so much if we discuss Obama). So where have I git you wrong?

(and it wasn't midnight when I posted this and you answered AA extensively -I don't need so much, just a couple lines clarifying the errors of my ways/beliefs about you - I.e. my "dishonesty")

Partly because it is past

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 05:30:06 +0000

In reply to Oh oh, and then the

Partly because it is past midnight and I am getting tired but if the conversation with you stops at this point it is mostly because I am tired of your intellectually dishonest accusations. I never excused Putin for anything you suggest in your scurrilous comment.

Tomorrow I will be traveling.

Sorry but it still appears to

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 04:54:14 +0000

In reply to Please do not attribute an

Sorry but it still appears to me that you offered the article because you thought it was of value, as you repeat here. That is why I concluded that you offered it with approval. You found in it interesting analysis that helped you understand something and presented it because you thought it might help the rest of us understand. So generous of you even though you say you don't care what we think. You say you are merely trying to figure out what's going on with the input from other minds. I applied my mind to analyzing what the author you brought to the conversation said. That does not mean that I either demand or expect you to accept my analysis but analysis is exactly what you say you want.

I don't "care", in the way you suggest, what your personal opinion is, but offering an article which offers analysis invites a different analysis if you really do want intelligent, nuanced, discuss as you claim. Why do you get so defensive when I analyze something differently than does the author of the article you brought into the conversation? Don't you claim to want participation in nuanced conversation among the participants here at dag?

I do not think your 'pseudonymous opinion or my pseudonymous opinion of Russia is so goll damn important' I think they are both just opinions, but I did arrive at my opinion of the points in the article which I commented on through analysis. It is just as valid for me to analyze the authors opinions or studied conclusions as it is for her analyze the world situation and present her conclusion publicly and for you to then bring it here as interesting and helpful. I found much of what she said interesting but wrong and explained why.

You very often applaud someone's comment when you agree. Why do you do so if you honestly think no one should care what others think? Arguing, in the classical sense which is what we are both doing [but in this case at least I am not arguing angrily] but at the same time truly not caring if anyone agrees is, IMO, simply an exercise in mental masturbation. Whack on if that is how you get your mental kicks but you might as well quit wasting your time trying to convince me that your way, which you describe vociferously but do not live up to in practice, is the only proper way to participate in topics here.

Oh oh, and then the

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 03:59:02 +0000

In reply to So look at Putin's record

Oh oh, and then the conversation stops.

Please do not attribute an

artappraiser — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 03:14:44 +0000

In reply to I have read the article but

Please do not attribute an excerpt I quote from foreign policy analysis as my "approving" of the policy, if that is what you meant. You should only impute I found the analysis interesting or helpful in understanding something.

It's really beyond me why anyone here cares so much about the personal opinions of pseudonymous users on this site about what policy should be. I'll tell you straight out: I really am a semi-retired art appraiser, never worked for the CIA nor the State Dept. and not going to now. Just another news junkie on the internet.

Why does it matter so much what I would prefer to see happen?!!! Strikes me as ridiculous to care.

I am merely trying to figure out what's going on with the input from other minds. I think it would be the height of arrogance on my part to think I could change another person's mind on what policy should be.

Like I tried to get across: all I was doing with that quote is saying it seemed to fit with those other news items in making a pattern that might be an explanation for Trumpian foreign policy behavior. Not at all a judgment on Russia by me for, against or anything between, but instead seeing something that might explain how Trump thinks and just throwing it out there, wondering if anyone else sees the same.

BECAUSE the Trump administration really has never clarified any real foreign policy theory AT ALL. So we are left with trying to read tea leaves.

But you turn it immediately into a Russia/China fer or agin issue! To be very frank, that's a "what the fuck?" kinda thing for me. I just don't think like that. I don't even like a lot of professional opinion, would almost always prefer analysis. Don't respect someone who feels that they know so well how to run the world.

Why do you think your pseudonymous opinion or my pseudonymous opinion of Russia is so goll damn important? What does that do for you? If you really were truly passionately serious about effecting national policy, you would at the very least be blogging on it publicly under your real name, if not doing something like campaigning for someone of like mind or running for office yourself.

Perhaps I misunderstood your

ocean-kat — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 02:26:26 +0000

In reply to What I called intelligent

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. You seem to be praising Russia for it's "intelligent pragmatism." At the least intelligent pragmatism seems to have a positive connotation. I see intelligent pragmatism as the old style of foreign policy of propping up brutal dictatorships used by both the US and Russia during the cold war especially in Latin America. It's gone somewhat out of style for the US which claims it favors regime change leading to democracy but that type of foreign policy still seems very popular with Putin. That's why we didn't support Mubarak in Egypt. The theory behind it is that while propping up dictators might have short term value their brutality toward their own people leads inevitably to their downfall with negative blow back to the US for propping them up.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intelligent pragmatism" but it seems to me Russia's version of it is the old style of propping up brutal dictatorships the are friendly to him. Perhaps you could explain how your version of Russia's intelligent pragmatism differs from mine since I'm not really sure how I mischaracterized your comment.

You are easily amused. And,

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 01:06:03 +0000

In reply to Haha good one.

You are easily amused. And, you are funny too.

Edit to add: There is an art to flying, a knack actually, it's the ability to throw yourself at the ground and miss - Hitchikers guide to the galaxy

Since China has bought so

moat — Tue, 07 Aug 2018 21:34:29 +0000

In reply to China hasn't followed Russia on disinformation — yet

Since China has bought so much of our debt and are so deeply involved with our consumer products, they have more incentive to be a part of business plans than mess them up. Russia is barely present in investments outside of real estate here. Saudi Arabian money has more skin in the game here than Russians do.

Russians do have a lot of cash. What can cash buy?