Syria, America and Putin's Bluff

[mendeleyev]

You lamented that you didnt want Russia to be a US province, would that really AT THIS POINT be that bad?

You're kidding, right?

Why not invade Canada while you're at it? Those guys are more European that American so something must be wrong. They're half commies already and who knows what they're saying bad about us when they switch into French. If we're not careful they'll invade Alaska and then every Alaskan will be able to see Quebec city from their back yard.

I think the Dutch should be next as they charge too much for tulips and then we should steamroll Iceland. Have you any idea how badly Iceland is governed? Those bastards had the gall to allow banks to fail and since the crisis, have begun to rein in inflation and have reduced unemployment and cut the deficit by more than half! SOBs aren't even going to make their grandchildren carry heavy debt loads and they DON'T borrow money for everyday expenses from China! Jeepers, what is wrong with them?! They need to be nuked.

Then let's go straighten out Luxembourg. First off, they should be required to spell it normal: Luxenburg. Arseholds just want to be different. What kind of country thinks they're better or more exceptional than everybody else?! Do they think that we're stupid cause the name begins with Lux as in "delux" and that in and of itself calls for a limited but substantial series of airstrikes not meant to cripple them, but designed to send a message, a shot across their bras, to let them know that they can't use buxom support on their citizens. It is a pink line if we start to see a bunch of buxom bras start moving around or being used in Buxomberg.

What right does the USA have to expect any independent country to bow down and worship just because the USA happens to be the largest dealer of weapons in the world, the world's lead exporter of porn, the country that dictates abortion and sterilization to countries that receive foreign aid, etc?

Please.

Truth is, China is going to come calling sooner than later and doing laundry or running a fish market will be the only jobs left when they collect on the massive debt owed to them. The USA won't be a world power in 50 years if we're not prudent and throw out every politician even remotely connected to deficit spending. It is way past time for the USA to get her financial house in order: she has no time or business sticking her nose into every corner of the globe.

LT, I'm not anti-American. I am however willing to allow other countries the right to have a different opinion and worldview.

[Daveman]

 
Where did you learn about Islam? Harvard University? Television? Cooking school? Just because a few dozen terrorist organizations and dictators get the most attention, they don't represent the face of Islam unless that is what you want to imagine. Those few dozen trouble makers need to be dealt with, not everybody within the religion.
 
There was a time in history some people pegged Christianity the way you pegged Islam. Holy Crusade Christians wanted power, land and riches.
 
 
I have a few Muslim friends that like it in America and don't want to go back. They want what we got. You've been watching too much Al Jazeera TV believing they all hate us. Remember how the Iraqi's cheered when American tanks rolled through Baghdad? A lot of Middle Eastern countries enjoy our military presence there.
 
As far as savagery goes, very few people can pull off a Ghandi to achieve freedom. Most have to get as savage as the American colonists were with the British Empire.

As for myself, after 9/11, I began seriously reading/studying anything "Islam" (know your enemy kinda thing), including but not limited to, the Qur'an and Hadith.  The teachings of Allah through Muhammad his Messenger are quite unambiguously clear.  Basically -- take over the world in the name of Islam and subjugate/eliminate those who don't convert.  They are NOT radical. They are normal.  The "peaceful" ones who are tolerant of other religions or lack thereof are either A) the *actual* radicals thinking outside the box, or B) in the minority practicing the Muhammad approved methodology of Al Taqiyya until their numbers become great enough to effect an Islamic takeover.


The info is readily available for anyone willing to cast off the stupidity of political correctness and view the world situation from an "historical leading into the current state of world affairs" perspective. 


To reiterate: A few dozen muslims isn't the problem.  The problem is within Islam itself and the practice of Al Taqiyya.  Stop this nonsense of protecting it as a "religion" when the religion itself calls for political world domination, slaughter of unbelievers, terrorism (yes, in the Qur'an itself) oppression of liberty, oppression of women, rule of Shariah Law.

I suggest to simply READ for yourself the Islamic teachings of Muhammad the Messenger himself.


A look at factual history with Dr. Bill Warner:


http://www.mrctv.org/videos/bill-warner-islam-1400-years-fear-english-titles




Interesting views from both Muslims and non-muslims...
http://www.clarionproject.org/home#


Another good one:
http://www.politicalislam.com/


A dismantling of the misinformation given in a spineless ABC news special about "Islam"



Three Stages of Jihad:





The last gentleman is a Christian so I should make the following:
**disclaimer: I have zero religious affiliation and don't intend this as a religious discussion. It's more about the basis for the jihadic spread of political conquest and domination. I would probably be labeled by others as an agnostic atheist (as compared to gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist). I would perhaps consider myself a Scientific Skepticist. 

If anyone of any religious or non religious affiliation is offended by this post then I apologize for having to inform you that I truly couldn't possibly care less.  Grow up.

[Faux Pas]

 
Where did you learn about Islam? Harvard University? Television? Cooking school? Just because a few dozen terrorist organizations and dictators get the most attention, they don't represent the face of Islam unless that is what you want to imagine. Those few dozen trouble makers need to be dealt with, not everybody within the religion.
 
There was a time in history some people pegged Christianity the way you pegged Islam. Holy Crusade Christians wanted power, land and riches.
 
 
I have a few Muslim friends that like it in America and don't want to go back. They want what we got. You've been watching too much Al Jazeera TV believing they all hate us. Remember how the Iraqi's cheered when American tanks rolled through Baghdad? A lot of Middle Eastern countries enjoy our military presence there.
 
As far as savagery goes, very few people can pull off a Ghandi to achieve freedom. Most have to get as savage as the American colonists were with the British Empire.

I realize it limits you severely but, stick to what you know. It'll stop you from looking as foolish as you do on this topic 

[Ade]

As for myself, after 9/11, I began seriously reading/studying anything "Islam" (know your enemy kinda thing), including but not limited to, the Qur'an and Hadith.  The teachings of Allah through Muhammad his Messenger are quite unambiguously clear.  Basically -- take over the world in the name of Islam and subjugate/eliminate those who don't convert.  They are NOT radical. They are normal.  The "peaceful" ones who are tolerant of other religions or lack thereof are either A) the *actual* radicals thinking outside the box, or B) in the minority practicing the Muhammad approved methodology of Al Taqiyya until their numbers become great enough to effect an Islamic takeover.


The info is readily available for anyone willing to cast off the stupidity of political correctness and view the world situation from an "historical leading into the current state of world affairs" perspective. 


To reiterate: A few dozen muslims isn't the problem.  The problem is within Islam itself and the practice of Al Taqiyya.  Stop this nonsense of protecting it as a "religion" when the religion itself calls for political world domination, slaughter of unbelievers, terrorism (yes, in the Qur'an itself) oppression of liberty, oppression of women, rule of Shariah Law.

I suggest to simply READ for yourself the Islamic teachings of Muhammad the Messenger himself.


A look at factual history with Dr. Bill Warner:


http://www.mrctv.org/videos/bill-warner-islam-1400-years-fear-english-titles




Interesting views from both Muslims and non-muslims...
http://www.clarionproject.org/home#


Another good one:
http://www.politicalislam.com/


A dismantling of the misinformation given in a spineless ABC news special about "Islam"



Three Stages of Jihad:

The last gentleman is a Christian so I should make the following:
**disclaimer: I have zero religious affiliation and don't intend this as a religious discussion. It's more about the basis for the jihadic spread of political conquest and domination. I would probably be labeled by others as an agnostic atheist (as compared to gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist). I would perhaps consider myself a Scientific Skepticist. 

If anyone of any religious or non religious affiliation is offended by this post then I apologize for having to inform you that I truly couldn't possibly care less.  Grow up.

I kind of thought the same as you at one point. Then I came to my senses. Get a little perspective, consider how many Christians go around sacrificing their kids to God and stoning their neighbours for adultery and I think you'll get the idea. Yes, there are a bunch of fanatics that follow the nuttier teachings of Islam to the letter, much like there were Christians doing the same a while ago, but much like those Christians they will, eventually, dwindle away and the more extreme teachings will be considered curious anachronisms.

[Daveman]

I kind of thought the same as you at one point. Then I came to my senses. Get a little perspective, consider how many Christians go around sacrificing their kids to God and stoning their neighbours for adultery and I think you'll get the idea. Yes, there are a bunch of fanatics that follow the nuttier teachings of Islam to the letter, much like there were Christians doing the same a while ago, but much like those Christians they will, eventually, dwindle away and the more extreme teachings will be considered curious anachronisms.

Yeah, I used to believe this as well, but the more I studied Islam, studied immigration numbers in USA and (especially) Europe, studied how Islam spread through the middle east -- the more I realized that the hope that this will simply go away or dwindle is just a western fantasy.  It may happen in time (at least a couple centuries), but I don't see it happening anytime soon or sans some major bloody confrontations on the home fronts of Europe and N. America. I predict situations will become rather nasty in parts of Europe within thirty years. 


I agree, Christianity doesn't have a pristine history -- the difference being that at this point on the timeline, their "kill the heretics" days are currently behind them while "kill the infidels" is well entrenched an, unfortunately, on the rise.

[Faux Pas]

Yeah, I used to believe this as well, but the more I studied Islam, studied immigration numbers in USA and (especially) Europe, studied how Islam spread through the middle east -- the more I realized that the hope that this will simply go away or dwindle is just a western fantasy.  It may happen in time (at least a couple centuries), but I don't see it happening anytime soon or sans some major bloody confrontations on the home fronts of Europe and N. America. I predict situations will become rather nasty in parts of Europe within thirty years. 


I agree, Christianity doesn't have a pristine history -- the difference being that at this point on the timeline, their "kill the heretics" days are currently behind them while "kill the infidels" is well entrenched an, unfortunately, on the rise.

I dunno Dave, it hasn't happened in the last 14 centuries, not much reason to expect it in the next two or three. At the current rate, it will have spread the world over well by then.

[Daveman]

I dunno Dave, it hasn't happened in the last 14 centuries, not much reason to expect it in the next two or three. At the current rate, it will have spread the world over well by then.

Historically, and more recently, it repeatedly tries until it succeeds or gets knocked back, then tries again.  I can't (yet) imagine Europe actually falling into Islamic states, but can easily see the potential for real confrontation in the not so distant future.  That's the point. With current immigration policies, many smaller European states will have vast proportional numbers of Muslims with at least a percentage staunchly adhering to 7th century jihad doctrine. 


This is, IMO, without a doubt, a numbers game.


I would absolutely welcome a faulty analysis on my part though ultimately I won't be around to admit to that...     

[GQBlues]

Yeah, I used to believe this as well, but the more I studied Islam, studied immigration numbers in USA and (especially) Europe, studied how Islam spread through the middle east -- the more I realized that the hope that this will simply go away or dwindle is just a western fantasy.  It may happen in time (at least a couple centuries), but I don't see it happening anytime soon or sans some major bloody confrontations on the home fronts of Europe and N. America. I predict situations will become rather nasty in parts of Europe within thirty years....

 


You are far more optimistic than I am Daveman. With the latest news about Somali-Americans being involved in Kenya's mall siege/terrorism, I think our officials are keeping things a bit more discreet and likely witholding intel about what is actually existing within our midst today. 86,000 Somalis in MN alone, plus whatever else Islamic-faith based immigrants we have living with us...I won't be too shocked to see funky things happening to us here and there from now on.

The Boston bombing alone, of which I'm not too convinced they're charging the actual persons who committed that crime, should give rise to that fact.

It's very little wonder Obama couldn't give up Big Brother too easily...

We need to get the heck out of the UN soon and let the world figure itself out. We are ever so slowly bringing the ME way beyond just our doorsteps anymore.

[mendeleyev]

GQ, 1000+

Yesterday in Dagestan there was yet another car bombing that killed two policemen and injured two dozen innocent bystanders, most of whom are Muslim. Killing of the innocents in radical Islamic thinking is simply providing them a quicker entrance to paradise.

[lordtiberius]

Maybe you should let Dagestanis determine their own destiny

[Shadow]

Maybe you should let Dagestanis determine their own destiny

Like giving them a nice house in Boston?

[GQBlues]

That's akin to Rick Perry and Texans finally getting their wish...

[Faux Pas]

Historically, and more recently, it repeatedly tries until it succeeds or gets knocked back, then tries again.  I can't (yet) imagine Europe actually falling into Islamic states, but can easily see the potential for real confrontation in the not so distant future.  That's the point. With current immigration policies, many smaller European states will have vast proportional numbers of Muslims with at least a percentage staunchly adhering to 7th century jihad doctrine. 


This is, IMO, without a doubt, a numbers game.


I would absolutely welcome a faulty analysis on my part though ultimately I won't be around to admit to that... 

Well a few holes in that theory is that most European countries already have a large percentage of the Wahabist sects firmly in the population. America is not immune either. Dearborn and Detroit, Michigan are prime examples of it happening here. I can't remember who but someone I saw on a news channel yesterday predicts the Arab Spring type uprisings to move onto non Arab lands. I think he's right. They can do that easily in select areas right now. Paris and London are having a problem

[mendeleyev]

Maybe you should let Dagestanis determine their own destiny

Just like South Ossetians, or are you being selective again?

You convince your supreme leader to free Indian lands and I'll convince Putin to let Chechnya and Dagestan go. Deal?

As an aside, whether they would be let go or not, I'm assuming you understand that the violence wouldn't stop--the civil war amongst factions that would ensue after a free Chechnya and free Dagestan would make today's violence look like a church picnic.

[lordtiberius]

We could always have an election.  Of course, your people have not had too solid a history on that . . .

[lordtiberius]

This is where our national interest is - not with Mother Russia and her numerous errors



http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/was-mitt-romney-right-about-everything


Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything?

From Russia to Mali to Detroit, Romney’s biggest fans say they’ve been vindicated. “Obviously, it would have been nice if any of these incidents would have occurred during the campaign.” posted on September 5, 2013 at 8:17am EDT   McKay Coppins

Ten months after Mitt Romney shuffled off the national stage in defeat — consigned, many predicted, to a fate of instant irrelevance and permanent obscurity — Republicans are suddenly celebrating the presidential also-ran as a political prophet.

From his widely mocked warnings about a hostile Russia to his adamant opposition to the increasingly unpopular implementation of Obamacare, the ex-candidate’s canon of campaign rhetoric now offers cause for vindication — and remorse — to Romney’s friends, supporters, and former advisers.

“I think about the campaign every single day, and what a shame it is who we have in the White House,” said Spencer Zwick, who worked as Romney’s finance director and is a close friend to his family. “I look at things happening and I say, you know what? Mitt was actually right when he talked about Russia, and he was actually right when he talked about how hard it was going to be to implement Obamacare, and he was actually right when he talked about the economy. I think there are a lot of everyday Americans who are now feeling the effects of what [Romney] said was going to happen, unfortunately.”

Of course, there is a long tradition in American politics of dwelling on counterfactuals and re-litigating past campaigns after your candidate loses. Democrats have argued through the years that America would have avoided two costly Middle East wars, solved climate change, and steered clear of the housing crisis if only the Supreme Court hadn’t robbed Al Gore of his rightful victory in 2000. But a series of White House controversies and international crises this year — including a Syrian civil war that is threatening to pull the American military into the mix — has caused Romney’s fans to erupt into a chorus of told-you-so’s at record pace.

In the most actively cited example of the Republican nominee’s foresight, Romneyites point to the candidate’s hardline rhetoric last year against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration. During the campaign, Romney frequently criticized Obama for foolishly attempting to make common cause with the Kremlin, and repeatedly referred to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.”

Many observers found this fixation strange, and Democrats tried to turn it into a punchline. A New York Times editorial in March of last year said Romney’s assertions regarding Russia represented either “a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.” And in an October debate, Obama sarcastically mocked his opponent’s Russia rhetoric. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” the president quipped at the time.
That line still chafes Robert O’Brien, a Los Angeles lawyer and friend of Romney’s who served as a foreign policy adviser.

“Everyone thought, Oh my goodness that is so clever and Mitt’s caught in the Cold War and doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” O’Brien said. “Well guess what. With all of these foreign policy initiatives — Syria, Iran, [Edward] Snowden — who’s out there causing problems for America? It’s Putin and the Russians.”

Indeed, earlier this summer, Moscow defiantly refused to extradite National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden to the United States, prompting Obama to cancel a meeting he had scheduled with Putin during the Group of 20 summit. Russia has blocked United Nations action against Syria. And on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers that Russia was one of the countries supplying Syria with chemical weapons.

To Romney’s fans, these episodes illustrate just how unfairly their candidate was punished during the election for speaking truths the rest of the country would eventually come around to.

“The governor tried to enunciate how to deal with these very hard, tough issues, and we were met with slogans,” O’Brian lamented. “And now the real world is exposing the slogans as being totally trite.”

Admirers point to other examples of Romney’s unrewarded wisdom, as well.

During a foreign policy debate in October, the candidate briefly expressed concern over Islamic extremists taking control of northern Mali — an obscure reference that was mocked on Twitter at the time, including by liberal comedian Bill Maher. Three months later, France sent troops into the country at the behest of the Malian president, bringing the conflict to front pages around the world.

On the domestic front, Obamacare — which Romney spent more time railing against on the stump than perhaps any other progressive policy — is less popular than ever, while the federal government struggles to get the massive, complicated law implemented. (One poll in July found for the first time that a plurality of Americans now support the law’s repeal.)

And while the unemployment rate has, in the first year of Obama’s second term, gradually fallen to post-crisis lows, the still-ailing U.S. economy, which served as the centerpiece for Romney’s unsuccessful case against Obama’s reelection, was given a potent symbol earlier this summer when Detroit became the largest American city ever to declare bankruptcy.

The Motor City became a symbolic battleground during the election, with Romney proudly touting his father’s ties to the auto industry, and the Obama campaign relentlessly attacking the Republican for a Times op-ed he had written years earlier headlined “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

“The president took the title of that op-ed, which of course was written by editors of the New York Times, and used it to say Gov. Romney was being insensitive about his own home city,” complained former campaign spokesman Ryan Williams. Romney’s article argued that beleaguered automakers should consider going through a managed bankruptcy instead of taking a bailout but, Williams said, “the president’s campaign intentionally tried to blur the lines. It worked. And several months later, the city is going bankrupt because of liberal democratic officeholders.”

Referring to the bankruptcy, Putin’s posturing, and the Mali conflict, Williams added, “Obviously, it would have been nice if any of these incidents would have occurred during the campaign to vindicate Romney. You would never want to see the bankruptcy of a major U.S. city, or the president embarrass himself on the world stage like he has, but Gov. Romney did discuss these potential outcomes.”

Romneyites are processing these feelings of vindication in different ways. The campaign’s chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, said he has been disappointed to see their central message — that Obama would be unable to restore America’s strength — turned out to be so accurate: “If there is a part of the world in which America is stronger, it’s hard to find. What’s the president doing? Attacking a talk radio host. He has criticized Rush Limbaugh with more conviction than the leaders of Iran… We can only hope it improves. ”

And Jennifer Rubin, the conservative Washington Post blogger who became Romney’s most outspoken advocate in the press, accused members of the news media of failing to take the Republican’s arguments seriously, while allowing the incumbent skate through the race untouched.

“As for the media, they are the least self-reflective people I know,” Rubin said. “The left-leaning media has carried the president’s water faithfully, eschewing the least bit of critical analysis. Now they don’t like the result?”

For Zwick, perhaps the closest thing to a true Romney loyalist on the campaign last year, the belief that his candidate turned out to be right offers little comfort.

“It’s frustrating because there’s no way to correct it,” Zwick said. “We don’t do what they do in the U.K. and lead the opposition party when you lose. When you lose there is no way to sort of be vindicated. There’s no way to say, ‘OK, well, I didn’t win the presidency but I’m going to continue to fight.’ There’s no fighting. There’s no platform to do that. Fifty million Americans voted for the guy and yet it’s all for nothing.”

“I wish he’d run again,” Zwick added. “He’s not going to. But if he did, I’d be right there.”


Still think there was no difference between Romney and Obama? 

[GQBlues]

...You convince your supreme leader to free Indian lands and I'll convince Putin to let Chechnya and Dagestan go. Deal?...

LOL. That shouldn't be too hard, Mendy. Our leader can work miracles....as his aunt would happily attest to.










Even Aunt Zeituni proudly proclaims our system is fcuked up. LOL.

[Daveman]

Well a few holes in that theory is that most European countries already have a large percentage of the Wahabist sects firmly in the population. America is not immune either. Dearborn and Detroit, Michigan are prime examples of it happening here. I can't remember who but someone I saw on a news channel yesterday predicts the Arab Spring type uprisings to move onto non Arab lands. I think he's right. They can do that easily in select areas right now. Paris and London are having a problem

I'm not sure I'm following how that is a hole in the theory rather than support for it.  As the numbers increase the religion of peace, as if by magic, becomes less peaceful and situations  become more volatile.  That's the Allahu Akbar modus operandi seen countless times elsewhere.

[Shadow]

We could always have an election.  Of course, your people have not had too solid a history on that . . .

Of course having an election where half of the voters are thrown outside decision making is good democracy. In fact the people do not even elect the president, they only elect the people that PROMISE to elect a president.
But do not worry, the original democracies of Greece and Rome left out most of the population as well, it is simple the old olicharchy that wears a disguise.

True democracy as where the people were gathered on the square to approve or disapprove a proposal by the nobility is something else. Something that nowadays exists only in Switzerland, but was popular until about a century ago in..... Russia.


I guess you will be cancelling your wedding, after all you would not want to bring a spy in to your country, that would be very unpatriottic. Get a good old American Girl, and if you can not then stay alone. That is the offer a good Patriot has to make.
As for hatred and fear of Islam, you reap what you sow. By non-accepting them as equals, by mocking their principles and by clearly labeling them as possible murderers you drive them out of your society. As a result, they become vulnerable for those who point out these things and put propaganda in to the brain of the muslims that they are victimised. In the end it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

From the eye of the Muslim world, the American Christians are not doing so well on peace either.

And by the way, the Soviet and Chinese atheists have shown that they are not the solution as well. Perhaps it has nothing to do with your life vision, but all with having no respect for others and being power hungry ?

[lordtiberius]

She's Ukrainian.  Udachi

[Faux Pas]

I'm not sure I'm following how that is a hole in the theory rather than support for it.  As the numbers increase the religion of peace, as if by magic, becomes less peaceful and situations  become more volatile.  That's the Allahu Akbar modus operandi seen countless times elsewhere.

My bad, I wasn't clear. My point was the numbers are already there (in Europe) and here as well. It's not like the Muslim communities couldn't be extremely disruptive now, if they so chose. One day they will choose, according to the Koran

[mendeleyev]

We could always have an election.

Excellent!

The same kinds you gave the Indians or the Spanish natives in California, or were you thinking of something a little more substantial?

[mendeleyev]

We could always have an election.

One of the problems with having a hardcore political viewpoint is when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps the referendum of 2006 in South Ossetia, with 98.85 of the populace voting for independence from Georgia simply escaped your attention?

[lordtiberius]

Despite your evidence, most people will agree with me in saying that Russia is not a real democracy.  It is a pariah state in alliance with other pariah states like Iran.  No one refutes your indictment that we are in alliance with Al Qaida which is the same as saying we are in alliance with Satan.  But that alliance will not be renewed not even if the next President is a democrat.  Russia doesn't have clean hands, but that is not new.  Not since 1917 . . .

[mendeleyev]

Despite your evidence, most people will agree with me in saying that Russia is not a real democracy.

I knew that you'd come around. 

You and I both know that despite obvious tampering, United Russia took the majority of votes in the presidential election because so much progress still must be made outside of Moscow and Petrograd. That will take time but I'm encouraged in watching the weekend train trips of opposition groups out to educated Russians outside the major cities. That will cease for the most part over winter simply because it will be too cold for public gatherings in parks, etc.

LT, I will never expect Russia to bow down in submission to the USA but neither will I expect the opposite. There will often be policy disagreements and I may not agree with Russia's decision but I will support her right to not fall in lockstep just because the other country happens to be America.

Russia is experiencing the growing pains of democracy and I disagree strongly with Mitt Romney on Russia although I do feel he has a grasp on things economic, something the current guy sorely lacks because he is driven by a failed economic ideology.  There has been no democracy in Russia's long history other than a smelly version of rape and plunder when both George HW Bush and then Bill Clinton sent "help" in the form of corrupt asset and bond traders, many whom deserve to be burned at the stake for what they did to a people that trusted America for a very brief time.

Of course both sides have made mistakes but if you want to look at problems between the USA and Russia and understand much of the blame for how relations have turned, buy one hell of a big mirror.