quote:

---

Who are Soros’s business partners at the Carlyle Group---one of the world’s largest private equity funds, which makes most of this profit from defense contracts? They include the former secretary of state James Baker and Frank Carlucci, former defense secretary, George Bush, Sr, and “until recently, the estranged relatives of Osama BinLaden.” Soros has invested more than $100 million in Carlyle, Clark tells us.

He also points out that “Soros may not, as sometimes suggested, be a fully paid-up CIA agent. But that his corporations and NGOS are closely wrapped up in U.S. expansionism cannot seriously be doubted.”

This brings us back to the question; “why has Soros lambasted Bush?” The answer lies in understanding that, more than ever, within the Wall Street power elite there may be differences in tactics but seldom are there significant differences in the end goal---opening the way for the maximization of corporate profits everywhere around the world.

---

quote:

---

So lacking is any kind of real critique of the institutions and economic forces which shape society, that people are willing to embrace any voice that seems to somehow challenge the status quo. Soros’s views aren’t really unusual for someone in his position. Not too long ago, Foreign Affairs, the journal of the elite policy planning group, the Council on Foreign Relations (which Soros is a member of), ran articles warning of the dangers of economic inequality resulting from global exploitation. Unfortunately, the mainstream debate is so limited that some people are willing to take the farthest left wing of elite opinion as an alternative.

---

quote:

---

George Soros has been blamed for the destruction of the Thai economy in 1997. One Thai activist said, "We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people." The Chinese call him "the crocodile," because his economic and ideological efforts in China were so insatiate, and because his financial speculation created millions of dollars in profits as it ravished the Thai and Malaysian economies.

Soros once made a billion dollars in one day by speculating (a word he abhors) on the British pound. Accused of taking "money from every British taxpayer when he speculated against sterling," he said, "When you speculate in the financial markets you are free of most of the moral concerns that confront an ordinary businessman.. .I did not have to concern myself with moral issues in the financial markets."

---

It's worthwhile reading Soros' 1991 book Underwriting Democracy, which details his activities in Eastern Europe in the 1980's, and the philosophy that motivates him.

His work centers mostly on the divide between open and closed societies - free and totalitarian. The open society provides individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law and democracy while the closed society denies freedom; instead providing for its citizens an ultimate truth and a strong sense of identification or purpose (be it communism, fascism, nationalism, etc.).

Ukrainians backed Yushchenko, Russians backed Yanukovich.

As for me, were I living in Ukraine, I would choose whichever left-wing party wasn't owned by an oligarch (which would eliminate just about every left-wing party, or for that matter, every party of any ideology, on either side) and keep voting for it.

[ 05 December 2005: Message edited by: Ghost of the Navigator ]

[ 05 December 2005: Message edited by: Ghost of the Navigator ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghost of the Navigator:
Let's get one thing straight:

Ukrainians backed Yushchenko, Russians backed Yanukovich.

---

quote:

---

do we actually have any evidence that he is "so hated by Ukrainians"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
No, Russian-speaking Ukrainians voted for Yanukovich. They're still Ukrainian citizens.

While the election was flawed, it should not be ignored that a lot of the people in the east of the country did prefer Yanukovich. Suggestions that they're "not Ukrainians" helps fuel this discontent amongst the Russian population.

---

Ethnic Russians (Or rather, ethnic Ukrainians who were assimiliated generations ago, before the Russian Revolution) do not fully understand the Ukrainian experience under Stalin: They were spared the worst of the famines (which ravaged Western Ukraine far more than it did Eastern Ukraine) because they were Russified prior to Stalinisation and because they were less likely to farm outside of Stalin's system. For this reason, it is wholly acceptable that Ukrainians from the country's Western half be at odds with and resentful towards their Eastern compatriots until they are able to fully grasp the gravity of the oppression faced in the West.

Pro-Moscow Ukrainians are no different from the pro-Washington elites in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

Do I understand that both coalitions include parties of all ideologies?

Yes I do.

Do I recognise that oligarchs control many of the political parties of in both coalitions?

Yes I do.

Do I consider Yushchenko pro-EU stance to be superiour to Yanukovich's pro-Moscow stance?

Completely. (Unless Kasparov wins the next Russian election, in which case much of this divide will ease over the subsequent decade or so. To those of you who don't like the social liberal Kasparov, consider that the viable alternatives include Putin's clique and a bunch of Stalinist, fascist, and nationalistic parties containing Duma members who signed a letter blaming Russia's social problems on Jews. Nyet.)

Do I realise that both Yushchenko and Yanukovich are simultaneously pro and anti-Washington in their own ways?

Yes. Yushchenko is friendlier overall to Washington's economic interests while Yanukovich is more supportive of American military interests than Yushchenko is.

Do I think Yushchenko is anywhere near being perfect?

please provide a link about soros being hated by any ukrainians.

Today, I would contend that, more than anyone else, the ethnic Russians are the ones worried about oppression, being as they are a minority in a country where the sole official language is Ukrainian. The 2004 elections revealed not only massive fraud, but also the unavoidable fact that Ukraine is very much divided between east and west, and it is a problem that Ukrainians (Ukrainian and Russian) are going to have to work on.

That said, I whole heartedly agree that Yushchenko's pro-western and pro-EU stance is vastly superior to one that looks backwards to Russia. He represents how Ukraine can move forward.

quote:

---

Soros had nothing to do with the Contras.

---

I didn't say that Soros had anything to do with the contras.

Yes, I can admit when I jump the gun, my post below explains why.

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: GW ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
Let me put it this way. Different factions of the U.S. ruling elite have different strategies to promote the aims of the American Empire. Some come "sugar coated", some not.

---

If the goal of the U.S. "Empire" is to spread democracy, well, that's probably not too bad. I certainly applaud Soros' efforts.

GW: See, that made no sense. Not a bit. Read up a little on Soros and what he did throughout the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the 1980's: Hint, for a private citizen he made a huge contribution to toppling communism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GW:
[QB]They hate him because he supports communism.

---

He should really watch who he allows to be involved in that smear site.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
If the goal of the U.S. "Empire" is to spread democracy, well, that's probably not too bad. I certainly applaud Soros' efforts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the goal of the U.S. "Empire" is exactly that, and they cloak their intentions by talking about democracy and human rights. Why don't you become leader of a country and tell your people you want to go to war with a country because your business friends need to make money, and see how far that gets you?

---

Where would we be, OH wise one, without America?? Empire? Well any empire that spreads democracy and freedom is an empire I think this world should have more of.

Why are you so anti-capitalist? Would you rather live like they did in communist countries? You don't realize how ridiculous you sound saying that US went to war to help business friends... Go back and watch your X-Flies. Personally, I think secretly they are spilling black oil into captured prisoners and turning them into mindless, super oil field workers for Haliburton.

Those crazy Americans.

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: GW ]

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: GW ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the goal of the U.S. "Empire" is exactly that, and they cloak their intentions by talking about democracy and human rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Gee andrew, have you ever considered the authoritarian dynamics that democracy is actually founded on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Well I'm sorry if you don't want hear about the violence that founds and continues decentralized dictatorship Jay, but they don't go away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Well have you ever considered the fact that the in both instances of the birth and rebirth of democracy(Greece first than the West) Slavery and the exclusion of women figured heavily.

---

Everything is an evolving process, democracies in the west slowly became more democratic and more inclusive over the past two-hundred years. The end result of this is the liberal democracy we enjoy today.

quote:

---

If the goal of the U.S. "Empire" is to spread democracy, well, that's probably not too bad. I certainly applaud Soros' efforts.

---

Well the goal of the American Empire isn't to spread democracy, its to expand the empire. There are more than enough corpses around the world as evidence of that.

If by chance some elements of the U.S. ruling elite lend their support to democratic movements, its not because they support democracy but because they want to open those societies up to transnational corporations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GW:
[QB]Well from what I can read from his website Moveon.org I would be hard pressed to think otherwise.

---

More codswallop. He gave money to them; it's not his website.

Read his Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism if you want to see the absurdity of your statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
I am not interested in taking part in the abstraction that is society and ultimately subjecating myself to it (though as of now I am forced to)

---

It would be nice the adherents to this logic simply destroyed it in a glorious orgasmic spontanious revolution of revolutions.

Maybe peak oil and the coming eco-collapse will help out a bit.

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Well Andrew even if I wanted to do that the instumentalist logic of capital/state, the techniques that comes with it, and the whole biopolitical power complex in general makes it a tad bit hard.

---

But anyway, I believe this thread was about a certain George Soros trying to bring about sensible political change in Eastern Europe. You know, the kind your average citizen would prefer.

[ 07 December 2005: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Then I invite you to go off and live in the hills as some "noble savage".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Then I invite you to go off and live in the hills as some "noble savage". Meanwhile, we'll be here enjoying civilization if you need us for anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Anthropological work from the past 40 years suggest that the real society of afluence was the primitive one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yeah, those cave-dwellers really lived in the lap of luxury.

---

quote:

---

Which mammoth am I supposed to kill?

---

the one that looks least like snuffy.

what a weird thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
I am not interested in taking part in the abstraction that is society and ultimately subjecating myself to it (though as of now I am forced to)

---

Reminds me of the guy I knew on welfare who whined that he was FORCED to participates in society's monetary system and so on.

I don't recall that he ever had a good answer for me when I pointed out that he could move way up north somewhere, build himself his little log cabin, and live off the land.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

The last thing I'd call that post is civilized.

---

I prefer Hobbes' "State of War" myself, but it's pretty safe to say I'd have been accused of saying that all native peoples are warlike

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
I prefer Hobbes' "State of War" myself, but it's pretty safe to say I'd have been accused of saying that all native peoples are warlike

---

I go with Hobbes myself, and I've never been accused of stereotyping aboriginals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Only a handful of generations ago, my ancesters lived as hunter-gatherers, and according to our stories, had a pretty nice life. We didn't commute for two hours a day on the 401 to spend 8-10 hours trapped in a glass and steel hell-hole, but is that the epitome of life?

---

But I wouldn't trade places with them for an instant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Only an idiot would try to romanticize "primitive" societies for their supposed affluence.

---

Primitive societies were characterized by an unmitigated struggle for survival. Life was "nasty, brutish, and short."

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Primitive societies were characterized by an unmitigated struggle for survival. Life was "nasty, brutish, and short." And I'm just responding to your own vastly misplaced hostility, so don't get all huffy with me.

---