Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade

[niall78]

I am pretty sure that you are trolling here, but just out of curiosity - 9/11 and Russian bombings aside, can anyone think of an example of a definitive case involving any government bombing its own people in order to shift the blame on to their opponents? I can't think of a single good example...Anyone?

 

The British supplied, trained and provided intelligence to Loyalist gangs that murdered numerous British subjects over a forty year period. Going so far as to equip the gangs with captured weaponry to further escalate sectarian tensions. That's one example over a long time period that I am aware of.

 

I'm not sure what any of this thread has to do with Combat Mission, Battlefront or as background to the released games. I don't come here to be propagandised to by any side of the debate. In fact reading this thread is like listening to a group of nearly bald men arguing over who has the best hairstyle. Not good Battlefront - please uphold your own rules and end this type of debate on your games forum. There are thousands of places on the web such discussions can be had if people want to have them.

[VasFURY]

Yeh, ultimately Niall is right. It was interesting to pick your brains and find your reasonings on a number of matters, but the convo did eventually wind up where it shouldnt have. As for insulting my intelligence and calling me a raving idiot - fine, i can swallow that, but am I not allowed to believe what I want or choose to believe? Sburke wants to believe Russia is fascist, I want to believe in conspiracies - thats it really.

Look, you are a good bunch of guys here, with experience in various interesting fields, and I dont want to lose the possibility to communicate with, and become more informed from this community.

I apologise to those whom I offended with my views/opinions/reasonings, I hope we can remain civil towards eachother, and keep mutually enjoying and discussing this (CMBS) and many other future Battlefront titles.

Edited May 17, 2015 by VasFURY

[VasFURY]

Shame that these special forces were'nt in the parade

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/navy-seals-russian-style-watch-5671880

[DreDay]

The British supplied, trained and provided intelligence to Loyalist gangs that murdered numerous British subjects over a forty year period. Going so far as to equip the gangs with captured weaponry to further escalate sectarian tensions. That's one example over a long time period that I am aware of.

I know very little about the history of the tensions in NI, so I might very well be mistaken; but there was no record of Bitish government either suppling the IRA or performig "false flag" terror acts that they would blame on the rebels, was there? That was sort of the core of my question...please feel free to correct me if I am missing something.

I'm not sure what any of this thread has to do with Combat Mission, Battlefront or as background to the released games. I don't come here to be propagandised to by any side of the debate. In fact reading this thread is like listening to a group of nearly bald men arguing over who has the best hairstyle. Not good Battlefront - please uphold your own rules and end this type of debate on your games forum. There are thousands of places on the web such discussions can be had if people want to have them.

Well said, good sir!

[niall78]

I know very little about the history of the tensions in NI, so I might very well be mistaken; but there was no record of Bitish government either suppling the IRA or performig "false flag" terror acts that they would blame on the rebels, was there? That was sort of the core of my question...please feel free to correct me if I am missing something.

 

 

Here's a few links :

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14_Intelligence_Company

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Research_Unit

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Special_Constabulary#1969_deployment

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Paramilitary_infiltration_of_the_UDR

 

The Military Reaction Force has been called a legalised death squad by some of its own members. Its successor the 14th Intelligence Company was involved in numerous civilian killings including the worst atrocity of the civil war in Northern Ireland - the Dublin and Monaghan bombings - an attack on a sovereign country against which they weren't at war - in which 33 civilians were killed. The British military were up to their eyes in helping kill their own citizens over a period of decades.

 

Anyway - like I said - there are other websites for these type of debates.

Edited May 17, 2015 by niall78

[DreDay]

Here's a few links :

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14_Intelligence_Company

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Research_Unit

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Special_Constabulary#1969_deployment

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Paramilitary_infiltration_of_the_UDR

 

The Military Reaction Force has been called a legalised death squad by some of its own members. Its successor the 14th Intelligence Company was involved in numerous civilian killings including the worst atrocity of the civil war in Northern Ireland - the Dublin and Monaghan bombings - an attack on a sovereign country against which they weren't at war - in which 33 civilians were killed. The British military were up to their eyes in helping kill their own citizens over a period of decades.

 

Anyway - like I said - there are other websites for these type of debates.

 

Thank you for those links Niall. It's always a pleasure to learn about another chapter of history that I have been fairly ignorant of till now. However, I think that there might be a slight disconnect in what I had meant in my original post and what you have so graciously explained here. In case of 9/11 or 1999 Russian bombings conspiracy theories - it is implied that the government had setup terror acts against its own loyal citizens to blame their opponents for it (for the record - I find such insinuation to be not just ludicrous, but also insulting to the victims of these horrific acts). While in case of NI Unionist forces, they had been used as "death squads" to take out the British Citizens that were opposed to Unionist rule in NI. Both cases are fairly despicable in my view, but the former (unfortunately) has had many other precedents around the world, while the later seems to be completely contrived and illogical to me.

Edited May 17, 2015 by DreDay

[sburke]

I am pretty sure that you are trolling here, but just out of curiosity - 9/11 and Russian bombings aside, can anyone think of an example of a definitive case involving any government bombing its own people in order to shift the blame on to their opponents? I can't think of a single good example...Anyone?

I am pretty sure I am not.

On to your other question and following on some of the comments of other folks, collaboration of the state with political groupings allied with them is pretty much the norm everywhere though still reprehensible. The involvement of prison guards in America with the klu klux klan and other aryan groups is a long standing problem that still exists today is just one example. However now we are really going way off topic. My feelings about what Putin represents was at least about his participation around the parade whether you agree with me or not.

[niall78]

Thank you for those links Niall. It's always a pleasure to learn about another chapter of history that I have been fairly ignorant of till now. However, I think that there might be a slight disconnect in what I had meant in my original post and what you have so graciously explained here. In case of 9/11 or 1999 Russian bombings conspiracy theories - it is implied that the government had setup terror acts against its own loyal citizens to blame their opponents for it (for the record - I find such insinuation to be not just ludicrous, but also insulting to the victims of these horrific acts). While in case of NI Unionist forces, they had been used as "death squads" to take out the British Citizens that were opposed to Unionist rule in NI. Both cases are fairly despicable in my view, but the former (unfortunately) has had many other precedents around the world, while the later seems to be completely contrived and illogical to me.

 

 

Yes I suppose the victims could have been considered 'disloyal' in some way - mainly just due to their religion or place of residence (they lived in a nationalist area). So it could be viewed as slightly different than attacks against victims where zero excuses could be manufactured.

 

I don't hold with such conspiracy theories as 9/11 or 1999 Russian bombings. A person could argue they were a means to an end - the civilian deaths were justified by the planners to get the results they wanted. The 9/11 theory itself is actually bonkers when you start drilling into it. I could maybe buy a crime of omission rather than commission. An intricate plan where government forces orchestrate the whole episode is frankly laughable.

 

One thing I am sure of is there is no morality when it comes to the actions of state forces - especially for bigger countries. That's why this thread is laughable in its attempt to portray any such actor as 'good guys'. There are no good guys only many shades of deep grey.

Edited May 17, 2015 by niall78

[DreDay]

I am pretty sure I am not.

On to your other question and following on some of the comments of other folks, collaboration of the state with political groupings allied with them is pretty much the norm everywhere though still reprehensible. The involvement of prison guards in America with the klu klux klan and other aryan groups is a long standing problem that still exists today is just one example. However now we are really going way off topic. My feelings about what Putin represents was at least about his participation around the parade whether you agree with me or not.

 

Fair enough. If that's what you actually believe (I am refering to your earlier posts here)  I can respect that; while still completely disagreeing with your premise. I would not dispute your pont about goverments (all around the world) using political and even militant organization to push their agenda and to neutralize their opponents. As I've said above, there are plenty examples of that everywhere you look. What I do find highly questionable is the notion that governments would commit horrific terror acts agains their own loyal citizens only so that they could blame their opponents for it. In my political studies, I have come to a firm conclusion that this is not how functional goverments operate.

[DreDay]

One thing I am sure of is there is no morality when it comes to the actions of state forces - especially for bigger countries. That's why this thread is laughable in its attempt to portray any such actor as 'good guys'. There are no good guys only many shades of deep grey.

 

Absolutely! I am with you on this 100%. When looking at any powerful nation (i.e. US, China, Russia) it is absolutely fruitless to argue that the aggressive actions of one are well justified, while those of another are despicable. They all do what they consider to be most beneficial for their national interest, and their citizens would not expect anything less from them. That's why I find the whole "when we kill people we do it for the good, while when (Russians/Chinese) do it they are pure evil" statements to be laughable. I understand that they are driven by our propaganda machine (just like they are in any other powerful state); but I would expect more people to see past that and to realize that we are not always the good guys, and what we learn about our potential opponents is very much slanted by what our systems what’s us to think and believe... again, just like any other powerful and independent state.

Edited May 17, 2015 by DreDay

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: National Interest

 

But we can discuss which national interest is less malevolent quite handily.  Which is getting back to Orwell.  Throwing your hands up and declaring they're all evil is sort of a cheap cop-out.  Effectively some national interests are less helpful, and others more.  So looking at say, the Cold War, we can compare the actions of the two competing super powers:

 

The US broadly wants you to buy their stuff, not be communist or too socialist, and to not mess with their ability to do business in your country.

 

The USSR wants more or less complete political and military control of your country, and a strict adherence to political doctrine.

 

That's really the loose version of it.  But the sort of freedom enjoyed by much of the west despite being firmly within the US sphere of influence vs the treatment of Soviet dominated Eastern Europe is worth noting and discussing (as is the occasionally "better dead than Red" policies of the US relative to the "sorry, you're not Soviet enough Hungary, hope you like our new tanks!" policies).  As in the relative virtues of Chinese investment in Africa's infrastructure vs the balance of trade and often willingness to work totally within corrupt systems in corrupt ways.

 

It's really easy to simply declare all parties are equally evil and walk away because that removes the importance of an educated, involved population in a country, and ultimately works against the accountability that we all as citizens should demand of those who nominally rule in our interest.  The blind acceptance of either total good, or total evil is just as inexcusable.  And worse when simply declaring everyone equally evil, it actually favors countries that do the least good (of which I'm comfortable saying the USSR/Russia historically has been one of those).

 

Which is really tragic in that the Russian people deserve better leadership than they've...uh, perhaps ever had?  Some of the Czars were about par for the course of the era, none of the various communist leaders were really worth a damn in retrospect (Lenin's actual accomplishments as a ruler are pretty lame, especially in light of the human suffering of the various people of the USSR, Stalin is at best Hitler Jr, Khrushchev was divisive, but likely some of the better leadership, but after that it was all "how many senile angry old men can we put in power?" until the whole mess burned down.  Gorbachev was pretty good in recognizing the world had changed, but really was the pilot of a crashing plane at that point, Yeltsin eeeeeeeh, and Putin is simply a well disguised robber-baron vs a "good" leader).

[DreDay]

Panzersaurkrautwerfer, you make a very good point. I completely agree that it is way too simplistic and short-sited to say that all powerful states are equally bad (or good) in their actions and that their military and geopolitical ventures should always be held to the same standard. My original point is that they all operate with intention of pushing their geo-political, military, economic, and (less so) ideological interests; but the way that they go about it is by no means universal.

For the record - I don't believe that any of them are evil (nor righteous); and that their actions are driven by (first and foremost) the natural dynamic of foreign affairs (i.e. how much they can accomplish based on their strengths and weaknesses vs. those of their rivals).

The tough question (that many observers, myself included) struggle with - is how do you evaluate such actions from a moral/humanitarian standpoint. My personal view is that the value of human life is the most essential standard when evaluating the actions of these states. Unfortunately we (US) do not have a good record on that end, as we have easily been directly responsible for more deaths than any of our geopolitical rivals post WW2. Again, that's not to say that our rivals have not done tons of damage as well; but there is no escaping the fact that our military ops have brought more death and suffering to civilians all around the world than those of Soviets/Russians/Chinese/Vietnamese/Iraqis/Serbs post WW2.

An opposing view (which I don’t quite share, but still very much respect) is that the freedom of expression and speech is the ultimate virtue that is worth fighting for. On that end, we (thank God) have done a much better job than any of our rivals.

The point that I was trying to make above though - is that all powerful and independent states strive to strengthen their national interests – that is an ultimate goal of any strong country, which is to be expected. Are they all equally bad (or good) in their actions? Absolutely not! However, the impetus for their actions is generally the same, while the execution might be quite different..

Edited May 17, 2015 by DreDay

[Sublime]

panzer,

stalin as a hitler jr? Id argue senior =)  he just was on the winning side of the world war. he killed more people than Hitler, notably from his own empire that Hitlers stated intent was the entire extermination of! lol!

I also think its a sad representation of wtf is going on with Russian media and society that to date Stain remains one of if not the all time most popular leader they ever had.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Sublime

[DreDay]

[

panzer,

stalin as a hitler jr? Id argue senior =) he just was on the winning side of the world war. he killed more people than Hitler, notably from his own empire that Hitlers stated intent was the entire extermination of! lol!

I hear that argument a lot, as it has pretty much been accepted on our side of the pond. All the historical evidence that I had seen (and I would be a first one to admit that I am not a historian) seems to contradict these claims. Which is not to say that Stalin was not a brutal dictator; but I personally tend to think that this line of thinking (i.e. "Stalin was worse that Hitler") has been fed to us for reasons that are less than objective... And this is coming from someone who absolutely despises Stalin.

 

I also think its a sad representation of wtf is going on with Russian media and society that to date Stain remains one of if not the all time most popular leader they ever had.

That I agree with. Russians do need to have some closure with the Stalinist era and it would not be prudent to completely demonize him; however, he is certainly not a character that deserves to be celebrated and honored either.

Edited May 17, 2015 by DreDay

[Pablius]

Re: National Interest

 

The US broadly wants you to buy their stuff, not be communist or too socialist, and to not mess with their ability to do business in your country.

 

 

 

While I´m happy that the West won the Cold War and don´t consider myself to be anti american, I`ll take a moment to comment on this from the point of view of my corner of the world, Latin America

 

It´s true, I think, that being in the US sphere of influence is more like having a Boss than a Big Brother, it´s more about money than soul crushing servitude, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of innocent blood spilled over that

 

The US backed/supported/tolerated some of the worst butchers in history in Latin America during the 20th Century, and that has a cost, the cost is the monumental anti american sentiment in the region

 

There were, of course, exceptions, when those butchers sometimes turned on the US or when some US President occasionally decided to call them out on human rights abuses (Carter did it to no great effect, but at least spoke of it)

 

Paradoxically, this is the reason why Cuba is seen as a beacon of hope for so many in Latin America, as the one country that stood against the empire, it may sound crazy, but for many at the other end of the US foreign policy it is not

 

In my personal case I was just a kid in the 70s and 80s when all of this was still going on, but friends of my family disappeared at the hands of the State and members of my family were forced into exile

 

I put the blame of it more on our own shortcomings than on the US or any other foreign power, but the narrative the US propagates about being about democracy and freedom sounds completely hollow for most people here, it´s just the way it is

 

In other regions of the world it may well be the other way around, having endured the tyrants imposed by the USSR.

 

In the end the big powers play their game, they may not be equally evil but the simple truth is that their interest come first and the lives of the people in smaller/weaker countries comes second, it`s the nature of the nation-state model, certainly in a smaller scale similar dynamics occur everywhere, smaller/weaker countries are not blameless 

 

Sadly, after the Cold War the international community was not able to find a working status quo and today`s stage is even more complicated by the appearance of non-state actors and global economics, I don´t think the US or any other country has enough power to shape the world, and would probably be better served by using it in a targeted form that apply the notion of personal responsibility and not collective punishment or on the basis of broad regional consensus (like against ISIS) and not by large scale interventions in most cases

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Re: all equally bad

 

The only thing I'd ask people is to stop riding white horses. As Pablius have just said, talks about freedom and democracy sound hollow. Ideals and reality are two separate things.

 

What I think is going on is a giant inequality of social evolution levels around the world. It doesn't go in sync everywhere. It doesn't take the same paths everywhere. The biggest problem to solving this inequality is the fact that you cannot forcefully "uplift" societies in a timely fashion. Evolution takes time. One of the main factors is the length of human life. Ideals often die with people that carry them. But the good news is that, as long as countries are not sealed up as North Korea, you can't stop natural social evolution from happening.

 

I love sci-fi. There were these two great writers, Strugatsky brothers. I very much enjoyed their pure sci-fi stuff, but didn't really want to read their social-related stuff. But, when I was bored (well, this is why I never am, really), I started going through their social sci-fi. And you have no idea how cool it turned out to be. Actually, much relevant even today. Those who want something to read, keep an eye out. They go deep into social problems, and "uplifting" specifically.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Latin America

 

It goes back to what I said about the US national interest.  And we'll take the most direct route to get to that.  As you said in terms of:

 

 

 

I put the blame of it more on our own shortcomings than on the US or any other foreign power, but the narrative the US propagates about being about democracy and freedom sounds completely hollow for most people here, it´s just the way it is

 

And that's the reality.  If you're the US looking to achieve our own goals in region, we're going to support the most realistic means to that end.  And when the most realistic set of government is honestly choosing which authoritarian cult of personality leader is going to run the country (and looking at Castro, Chavez and even Allende if we're being honest), we're going to give some support to the one that will achieve our objectives.

 

Not that great for the "long haul" in Latin America, but US policy in the region is a sign of how Latin America was doing more than a sign of how the US prefers to operate.

 

Re: baby Hitler

 

You get sucked into the "well Stalin only killed <insert number smaller than Hitler here>" route if you compare the two.  They've both terrible people who did terrible things, I'm just not inclined to deal with some apologist saying that 1.15 Million people really isn't that bad or something.  

[DreDay]

You get sucked into the "well Stalin only killed <insert number smaller than Hitler here>" route if you compare the two.  They've both terrible people who did terrible things, I'm just not inclined to deal with some apologist saying that 1.15 Million people really isn't that bad or something.

I agree, but whom exactly are you refering to when you say that? Have you met a lot of such people? If so - where and when?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The only thing I'd ask people is to stop riding white horses. As Pablius have just said, talks about freedom and democracy sound hollow. Ideals and reality are two separate things.

 

I agree, but respectfully differ in that while they are separate concepts, they strongly influence each other.  The American idealism and desire for more free government was curtailed by the reality of Latin America 1950-1995/present really.  The realpolitik US maneuvers in the middle east often come saddled with unreasonable expectations of freedom human rights and other such high minded ideals.   Striking a balance between those too might be seen as how a "good" government functions.

 

 

 

I love sci-fi. There were these two great writers, Strugatsky brothers. I very much enjoyed their pure sci-fi stuff, but didn't really want to read their social-related stuff. But, when I was bored (well, this is why I never am, really), I started going through their social sci-fi. And you have no idea how cool it turned out to be. Actually, much relevant even today. Those who want something to read, keep an eye out. They go deep into social problems, and "uplifting" specifically.

 

Neat.  I've been meaning to check out roadside picnic.  Anything else they've done with good English translations?

 

Addendum:

 

 

 

I agree, but whom exactly are you refering to when you say that? Have you met a lot of such people? If so - where and when? 

 

I used to be a forums terrorist on the Wargames EE/ALB/RD.  There's some out and out Stalin did nothing wrong sorts on there.  Some other limited encounters back in college (same sort of idiots who back North Korea because communism).  

Edited May 17, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Re: Stalin

 

From all the people I've seen in my life, most of them praised SU times for good quality of life and overall happiness. And the only times I heard someone mention Stalin was along the lines "they didn't allow to do that kind of sh when Stalin was in charge". But when you think about it, Stalin died in 1953. 62 years ago. So actually very small amount of people still alive who lived during his times, and everyone else don't even know much about it. So saying that he is "the most popular leader" would be not true. Many just attribute his work to what came after him. Not to mention the stuff that comes out of Kremlin, including "popularity polls". That's actually a part of social engineering. Saying, "85% supports Putin", so that everyone starts believing it, following herd instinct. This is why I don't like polls.

[DreDay]

Re: Stalin

From all the people I've seen in my life, most of them praised SU times for good quality of life and overall happiness. And the only times I heard someone mention Stalin was along the lines "they didn't allow to do that kind of sh when Stalin was in charge". But when you think about it, Stalin died in 1953. 62 years ago. So actually very small amount of people still alive who lived during his times, and everyone else don't even know much about it. So saying that he is "the most popular leader" would be not true. Many just attribute his work to what came after him. Not to mention the stuff that comes out of Kremlin, including "popularity polls". That's actually a part of social engineering. Saying, "85% supports Putin", so that everyone starts believing it, following herd instinct. This is why I don't like polls.

That has been my experience as well when talking with Russian historians and foreign office personnel (back in a day when I had access to them). I have heard quite a few say: "this kind of a mess would never have happened back in Stalin days" or "Stalin had gotten our country to the peak of its strength" (which might be a little debatable, but certainly not ungrounded); but by the same token, I never got an impression that any of them would like to relive those years...

I used to be a forums terrorist on the Wargames EE/ALB/RD. There's some out and out Stalin did nothing wrong sorts on there. Some other limited encounters back in college (same sort of idiots who back North Korea because communism).

Oh I feel you. I have dazzled in ALB/RD quite a bit as well; however I think that you would agree that a small sample of Russian forum members there and an even smaller portion of them that praise Stalin are not a viable population sample.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I agree, but respectfully differ in that while they are separate concepts, they strongly influence each other.  The American idealism and desire for more free government was curtailed by the reality of Latin America 1950-1995/present really.  The realpolitik US maneuvers in the middle east often come saddled with unreasonable expectations of freedom human rights and other such high minded ideals.   Striking a balance between those too might be seen as how a "good" government functions.

 

VERY important thing I've learned over the past 1.5 years is: One should not tell people from other places about what's wrong with their counties. People have to discuss their internal problems with their own. That's the most productive and most useful activity politics discussion wise.

 

Neat.  I've been meaning to check out roadside picnic.  Anything else they've done with good English translations?

 

No idea, I read the originals, obviously. When it comes to pure sci-fi, I most favor their "The Land of Crimson Clouds" and other stuff with characters from that book. Their social sci-fi is a bit different, some of it more fictional than other, and touch different topics. Roadside picnic is definitely awesome, but a bit overrated IMO. I liked the Ugly Swans more. And, from the stuff I've read recently, I'd name The Final Circle of Paradise, Escape Attempt, Hard to Be a God. All very good.

[agusto]

Well i dont see anything wrong with telling them what you think is wrong with their countries. It only becomes crontroversial when you start to actively deny them the freedom to live they way they deem appropriate for them.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Well i dont see anything wrong with telling them what you think is wrong with their countries. It only becomes crontroversial when you start to actively deny them the freedom to live they way they deem appropriate for them.

 

Oh, it's actually very simple. Outsiders often have distorted perception of problems in question, which, in turn, often leads to all sorts of practically unresolvable conflicts in such discussions (especially when there's a white horse riding involved, which can be offensive). There's also saying "Start with yourself".

 

But when it actually comes to practical side of things, spending serious amount of time trying to explain to an outsider things that are obvious to your own, you (I personally did many times) may feel like you're simply wasting time. And THEN, you may (as I did) realize that to make your own backyard a better place you have to concentrate on discussing it with your own, because people living tens thousands miles away don't change anything in your life. People who you live next to do affect your life.

[sburke]

VERY important thing I've learned over the past 1.5 years is: One should not tell people from other places about what's wrong with their counties. People have to discuss their internal problems with their own. That's the most productive and most useful activity politics discussion wise.

 

I am pretty sure you didn't mean it quite as all encompassing as it sounds but I have to ask.

 

Would that mean it would have been out of line for folks to criticize the development of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s?  How about the Saudi gov't catering to Wahhabist promoters?  French persecution of Gypsies?  American Slavery? South African Apartheid? You get the drift.  I am pretty certain you will make exception for some of those.  So where would you draw the line?

 

As an American I am pretty used to people telling me what is wrong with my country, and sometimes, even frequently they are right.  Earlier in this thread someone reverenced George Bush Jr as one of the stupidest presidents ever.  I wasn't about to disagree and I don't take offense.  I don't have a problem with folks criticizing my country.  Sometimes I'll agree, sometimes I won't. There is certainly nothing about a national border that makes their observations somehow irrelevant or unhelpful.