EPTOn March 17 2014 07:36 xM(Z wrote:
well it's
vs
they already had a 'right sector'. it just didn't amount to anything until the cash started to flow
Show nested quote +
On March 17 2014 07:26 Sub40APM wrote:
The Romanian fellow wrote: " US because it was their $5billions that made the right sector of ukraine politics able to stage the ousting of Yanukovych"
I interpreted this as: The Us spent 5 billion dollars to create the Right Sector -- the political organization -- to stage a coup.
How do you read it?
On March 17 2014 07:21 nunez wrote:
now i'm confused. "Well his original claim was that 5 billion was spent by the US to create neo-nazis." is not referring to the part you bolded in his post? that's what i thought, and it is very diff from what you portray it as which is kinda important, since we're bickering about how accurate it is.
On March 17 2014 07:11 Sub40APM wrote:
...are you being for real right now? You yourself threw a mini fit in this thread about how the Right Sector are neo Nazis who are taking over the government and how the Western puppet press isnt doing enough to highlight how the Right Sector is dangerous...
On March 17 2014 07:07 nunez wrote:
see, your posts are getting more enjoyable to read already. it's hard to be precise when it comes to shady dealings and covert business employed by rich to keep extorting poor, hence a mysterious, evil thing like vampire is fitting.
ok, so where in that bolded part does it say that the us spent 5 B to create neo-nazis? is it before or after the part where it says "their 5 billions made the right sector of ukraine politics able to stage the ousting of yanu"?
nope, it just needs to show that NED is a vehicle for various agendas besides that of the us govt to support it. and it does.
On March 17 2014 06:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I was talking about you calling people vampires, not everything you post. Escalation!
What does calling people vampires in a politico-economic context accomplish? It has a very bad and ugly history and it seems careless to me.
The underlying thesis is also flawed - America and Europe (and Japan/SK) dominate the global economy, the global economy is allegedly a vampire feeding system for these rich vampire countries, yet global poverty in the last 20 years was halved and for most of the planet's poor other progress in the material quality of their lives was achieved to varying, sometimes great, degrees. How does that circle get squared? This vampire system that runs the world is sucking the life out of countries while those countries are also - somehow - seeing poverty fall and life expectancy, access to education, clean food and water, decent housing, etc. increase.
what do your posts accomplish do you think? self-satisfaction probably right? whatever floats your boat imo, it's good imagery.
I was talking about you calling people vampires, not everything you post. Escalation!
What does calling people vampires in a politico-economic context accomplish? It has a very bad and ugly history and it seems careless to me.
The underlying thesis is also flawed - America and Europe (and Japan/SK) dominate the global economy, the global economy is allegedly a vampire feeding system for these rich vampire countries, yet global poverty in the last 20 years was halved and for most of the planet's poor other progress in the material quality of their lives was achieved to varying, sometimes great, degrees. How does that circle get squared? This vampire system that runs the world is sucking the life out of countries while those countries are also - somehow - seeing poverty fall and life expectancy, access to education, clean food and water, decent housing, etc. increase.
see, your posts are getting more enjoyable to read already. it's hard to be precise when it comes to shady dealings and covert business employed by rich to keep extorting poor, hence a mysterious, evil thing like vampire is fitting.
On March 17 2014 06:48 Sub40APM wrote:
Uh ya.
and it corroborates perry's points about it being is a vehicle for neolibs agenda, not the us govt's (facilitating us coorp profit is what they're aiming for).
The final assessment of thesis that you linked is that NED doesnt work and is a waste of tax payers money.
For it to support the original article you linked claiming that a neo-con coup happened in Ukraine you would have to explain why for -- the duration of the paper you cited 1990 - 99 -- the neocons not only failed to accomplish anything but saw the rise of an authoritarian, anti-reformist president who dominated politics pretty totally. Then youd have to explain how the neocons then managed -- after what seems like total incompetence in their quest for whatever it is that their nefarious goals are -- they suddenly succeed so spectacularly and so rapidly.
On March 17 2014 06:39 nunez wrote:
here's the part you bolded that sparked this. yup, that's claiming that 5 billion was spent by the us to create neo-nazis. guess you still gotta keep waiting for 'proof' (gl getting your hands on cia's nazi-creation budget xmz).
On March 17 2014 06:09 Sub40APM wrote:
Well his original claim was that 5 billion was spent by the US to create neo-nazis, so I am still waiting for support for that argument.
the paper corroborates both the robert parry article(~ cold war relic fund that generally supports a neocon agenda often at cross-purposes with the Obama administration’s foreign policy)All it corroborates from the Parry article was that its inception the NED was filled with Reagen types.
There is 0 support in the paper you quoted for this claim. All it shows is that Ukraine receives money from NED. Neither the right sector nor Svoboda are mentioned in the paper, and neither were relevant until the late 2000s, Your paper covers a period between 1990 and 1999 when Ukraine was dominated by Kuchma, an authoritarian pragmatist who at best was neutral if not outright Russian leaning.
Finally, the paper you cited comes to the conclusion that this help is mostly useless and a waste of American tax payers money and all foreign aid that look to build democratic institutions should be cut.
On March 17 2014 06:00 nunez wrote:
what do your posts accomplish do you think? self-satisfaction maybe?
i think you are confused. nobody is saying 5 billion dollars was funelled through NED, but feel free to make the case that the NED's spending in ukraine is not included in that figure,
On March 17 2014 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
Calling people vampires has a long and distinguished history with a certain set of people, nunez is just unconsciously carrying on a fine blood-soaked tradition dating back over a thousand years. The particular one he's consciously carrying on is over a hundred years old and was and is one of the favorite insults of a certain globally failed and murderous ideology. How calling people vampires accomplishes anything but self-satisfaction at being "edgy" is a mystery, but that is the point isn't it.
[quote]
Calling people vampires has a long and distinguished history with a certain set of people, nunez is just unconsciously carrying on a fine blood-soaked tradition dating back over a thousand years. The particular one he's consciously carrying on is over a hundred years old and was and is one of the favorite insults of a certain globally failed and murderous ideology. How calling people vampires accomplishes anything but self-satisfaction at being "edgy" is a mystery, but that is the point isn't it.
what do your posts accomplish do you think? self-satisfaction maybe?
On March 17 2014 05:20 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]Did you even read your source or did it come up through a quick google search?
Ill put it below the fold if you care, but the actual thing you cite paints a pretty contradictory picture, one that stands in contrast to the assured and unsubstantiated tone of the original article you posted as evidence that NED was a vehicle through which 5 billion dollars was funneled to the right sector by America
+ Show Spoiler +
NED supports pro-Democracy, anti-Military government forces in Chile -- you know, the military dictatorship they helped to create in the first place ---
NED appears not to be a tool the government actual wants...
or it turns out NED is some sort of corruption mechanism inside DC without any actual foreign interests at all
Look at his top recipients, Ukraine received less money than Poland, Russia and China and slightly more than Cuba and Romania
[quote]Did you even read your source or did it come up through a quick google search?
Ill put it below the fold if you care, but the actual thing you cite paints a pretty contradictory picture, one that stands in contrast to the assured and unsubstantiated tone of the original article you posted as evidence that NED was a vehicle through which 5 billion dollars was funneled to the right sector by America
+ Show Spoiler +
Even though NED grant money appears to have been appropriately awarded to countries based on their
need, the grant money did not have a significant impact on political and economic freedom. This calls into question the wisdom of using the U.S. government’s scarce resources to promote democracy and economic freedom – not only through NED, but in any similar manner.
The thesis is against all American foreign aid.need, the grant money did not have a significant impact on political and economic freedom. This calls into question the wisdom of using the U.S. government’s scarce resources to promote democracy and economic freedom – not only through NED, but in any similar manner.
Officially, the U.S. government was neutral about the Chilean plebiscite, but it
recognized that the plebiscite was an opportunity for Chile to take a large step toward
democracy. Seizing the moment, the U.S. became involved in Chile through NED. From
its own funds, NED sent $600,000 to opposition groups in Chile. Many of these groups
were reluctant to accept the money because they were uncomfortable using foreign
money to influence Chile’s domestic politics. However, most groups did eventually
accept the money because they recognized that their chances of winning without it were
unlikely (Christian 15 June 1988, A1). Congress later gave NED another $1 million to
distribute in Chile. Pinochet’s government made U.S. support for its opposition a central
campaign issue, but was unable to win the plebiscite (Christian 15 June 1988, A14).
recognized that the plebiscite was an opportunity for Chile to take a large step toward
democracy. Seizing the moment, the U.S. became involved in Chile through NED. From
its own funds, NED sent $600,000 to opposition groups in Chile. Many of these groups
were reluctant to accept the money because they were uncomfortable using foreign
money to influence Chile’s domestic politics. However, most groups did eventually
accept the money because they recognized that their chances of winning without it were
unlikely (Christian 15 June 1988, A1). Congress later gave NED another $1 million to
distribute in Chile. Pinochet’s government made U.S. support for its opposition a central
campaign issue, but was unable to win the plebiscite (Christian 15 June 1988, A14).
NED supports pro-Democracy, anti-Military government forces in Chile -- you know, the military dictatorship they helped to create in the first place ---
In reaction to the Clinton administration’s request, the House voted to eliminate
all funding for NED by a vote of 243-181 (Corn 1993b, 57; Doherty 1993, 1672).
NED’s defeat in the House was bipartisan – two-thirds of Republicans and a slight
36
majority of Democrats voted for its elimination
all funding for NED by a vote of 243-181 (Corn 1993b, 57; Doherty 1993, 1672).
NED’s defeat in the House was bipartisan – two-thirds of Republicans and a slight
36
majority of Democrats voted for its elimination
NED appears not to be a tool the government actual wants...
Critics have described NED as a “political sacred cow” (Corn 1997, 27), valued
as a source of pork-barrel projects and lavish political junkets abroad for Washington’s
elites (Carothers 1994, 123; Corn 1992, 648). These elites include high-level
“Republican and Democratic party activists, conservative trade unionists, and free
marketeers” who use the organization to further their own agendas (Corn 1993b, 57).
Critics further allege that NED provides its spoils systematically in an attempt to gain
friends that can help it politically (Samuels 1995, 53). In essence, the elites use NED for
generous perks, and the organization uses the elites for political gain and protection. This
type of “inside-the-beltway political logrolling,” according to critics, makes it the type of
program that needs to be abolished (Conry 1994, 16).
as a source of pork-barrel projects and lavish political junkets abroad for Washington’s
elites (Carothers 1994, 123; Corn 1992, 648). These elites include high-level
“Republican and Democratic party activists, conservative trade unionists, and free
marketeers” who use the organization to further their own agendas (Corn 1993b, 57).
Critics further allege that NED provides its spoils systematically in an attempt to gain
friends that can help it politically (Samuels 1995, 53). In essence, the elites use NED for
generous perks, and the organization uses the elites for political gain and protection. This
type of “inside-the-beltway political logrolling,” according to critics, makes it the type of
program that needs to be abolished (Conry 1994, 16).
or it turns out NED is some sort of corruption mechanism inside DC without any actual foreign interests at all
Look at his top recipients, Ukraine received less money than Poland, Russia and China and slightly more than Cuba and Romania
i think you are confused. nobody is saying 5 billion dollars was funelled through NED, but feel free to make the case that the NED's spending in ukraine is not included in that figure,
Well his original claim was that 5 billion was spent by the US to create neo-nazis, so I am still waiting for support for that argument.
the paper corroborates both the robert parry article(~ cold war relic fund that generally supports a neocon agenda often at cross-purposes with the Obama administration’s foreign policy)
and xM(Z's claim that ukraine's right are able to throw their weight around because of it (the right of ukraine aligns with this agenda).
There is 0 support in the paper you quoted for this claim. All it shows is that Ukraine receives money from NED. Neither the right sector nor Svoboda are mentioned in the paper, and neither were relevant until the late 2000s, Your paper covers a period between 1990 and 1999 when Ukraine was dominated by Kuchma, an authoritarian pragmatist who at best was neutral if not outright Russian leaning.
Finally, the paper you cited comes to the conclusion that this help is mostly useless and a waste of American tax payers money and all foreign aid that look to build democratic institutions should be cut.
On March 17 2014 03:28 xM(Z wrote:
US because it was their $5billions that made the right sector of ukraine politics able to stage the ousting of Yanukovych
US because it was their $5billions that made the right sector of ukraine politics able to stage the ousting of Yanukovych
here's the part you bolded that sparked this. yup, that's claiming that 5 billion was spent by the us to create neo-nazis. guess you still gotta keep waiting for 'proof' (gl getting your hands on cia's nazi-creation budget xmz).
Uh ya.
and it corroborates perry's points about it being is a vehicle for neolibs agenda, not the us govt's (facilitating us coorp profit is what they're aiming for).
The final assessment of thesis that you linked is that NED doesnt work and is a waste of tax payers money.
For it to support the original article you linked claiming that a neo-con coup happened in Ukraine you would have to explain why for -- the duration of the paper you cited 1990 - 99 -- the neocons not only failed to accomplish anything but saw the rise of an authoritarian, anti-reformist president who dominated politics pretty totally. Then youd have to explain how the neocons then managed -- after what seems like total incompetence in their quest for whatever it is that their nefarious goals are -- they suddenly succeed so spectacularly and so rapidly.
ok, so where in that bolded part does it say that the us spent 5 B to create neo-nazis? is it before or after the part where it says "their 5 billions made the right sector of ukraine politics able to stage the ousting of yanu"?
nope, it just needs to show that NED is a vehicle for various agendas besides that of the us govt to support it. and it does.
...are you being for real right now? You yourself threw a mini fit in this thread about how the Right Sector are neo Nazis who are taking over the government and how the Western puppet press isnt doing enough to highlight how the Right Sector is dangerous...
now i'm confused. "Well his original claim was that 5 billion was spent by the US to create neo-nazis." is not referring to the part you bolded in his post? that's what i thought, and it is very diff from what you portray it as which is kinda important, since we're bickering about how accurate it is.
The Romanian fellow wrote: " US because it was their $5billions that made the right sector of ukraine politics able to stage the ousting of Yanukovych"
I interpreted this as: The Us spent 5 billion dollars to create the Right Sector -- the political organization -- to stage a coup.
How do you read it?
well it's
vs
they already had a 'right sector'. it just didn't amount to anything until the cash started to flow
But that money was flowing from 1990 till today, why did it take the right sector so long? and as nunez posted that thesis I guess, the NED neo cons have been investing in Ukraine for a while, and they seem to have gotten pretty terrible returns.
And why didnt the right sector carry out their coup in 2004 instead?
), I choose independent media in this case. And their reports contradict what you said. 
