Why Clinton is to blame for Putin

realitykeeper

Back in the nineties when the US were bombing Serbia, I recall the Russians were very angry about that because the Serbs are their fellow Slavs. Boris Yeltsin was especially apoplectic and it seemed to me that Bill Clinton took delight in aggravating him. At the time, Russia was on its knees after the collapse of communism so they could not face down the Americans like they did with Syria recently.
I believe that is the reason Boris Yeltsin selected Putin as his successor. Putin was a young KGB operative and a very unlikely choice. So why was he chosen? Could it have been as a direct consequence of Clinton rubbing Yeltsin s `face in the proverbial dirt? Yeltsin saw an uncompromising and cunning man in Putin. In other words, Putin was selected out of anger and resentment. Yeltsin was in many ways a good man but he was not thinking peace when he appointed Putin.
Over the years, several US Presidents have spoken to Putin about their wish to renegotiate the nuclear disarmament agreements to allow them to resume the US star wars program. Putin would not agree, even though the star wars program was a defensive program rather than an offensive one.
What Barack Obama needs to understand about Putin, is that he is the consequence of Clinton`s belittling and and humiliating Yeltsin on the world stage - just like Hitler was the consequence of the Treaty of Versailles.

I am not saying Putin is another Hitler but the consequences could be the same because Putin will never compromise. The way to win the peace is through winning hearts and minds of leaders and populations. This is a slow organic process which requires vast reserves of patience and diplomacy. Pope John Paul II was a great believer in loving the "other", this is a good place to start. As I see it, the other two requirements in diplomacy are the desire to understand the others point of view and the truth-trust-honesty principle.

In a world of nuclear weapons, humanity must either unite or it will destroy itself and the unfortunate creatures that must live on this planet with us.

Black Swan

realitykeeper wrote: »

What Barack Obama needs to understand about Putin, is that he is the consequence of Clinton`s belittling and and humiliating Yeltsin on the world stage - just like Hitler was the consequence of the Treaty of Versailles.

Comparing a few words exchanged between Yeltsin and Clinton to the extraordinary terms and conditions placed upon Germany with the Treaty of Versailles is like comparing a small pebble to a mountain range metaphorically. The Treaty had 440 articles that placed extraordinary financial obligations (reparations) upon Germany, essentially bankrupting the nation then, and into the future. Major land concessions occurred, including all overseas colonies rich with material resources. Germany fell into a major depression, with tens of thousands unemployed, along with a limitation of their military to 100 thousand, adding to those numbers thousands of unemployed military personnel.

sin_city

Blame for Putin? Putin helped avoid a conflict in Syria by standing up to the US's BS weapons claims.

The USA is totally out of control on a military front with the numerous drone attacks going on which are not broadcast.

Russia is def no saint but it's good to have some balance.

I'm tired of the US declaring that it is spreading democracy. The US was set up as a republic not a democracy.

At least with Putin we know where you stand.

thomur

realitykeeper wrote: »

Back in the nineties when the US were bombing Serbia, I recall the Russians were very angry about that because the Serbs are their fellow Slavs. Boris Yeltsin was especially apoplectic and it seemed to me that Bill Clinton took delight in aggravating him. At the time, Russia was on its knees after the collapse of communism so they could not face down the Americans like they did with Syria recently.
I believe that is the reason Boris Yeltsin selected Putin as his successor. Putin was a young KGB operative and a very unlikely choice. So why was he chosen? Could it have been as a direct consequence of Clinton rubbing Yeltsin s `face in the proverbial dirt? Yeltsin saw an uncompromising and cunning man in Putin. In other words, Putin was selected out of anger and resentment. Yeltsin was in many ways a good man but he was not thinking peace when he appointed Putin.
Over the years, several US Presidents have spoken to Putin about their wish to renegotiate the nuclear disarmament agreements to allow them to resume the US star wars program. Putin would not agree, even though the star wars program was a defensive program rather than an offensive one.
What Barack Obama needs to understand about Putin, is that he is the consequence of Clinton`s belittling and and humiliating Yeltsin on the world stage - just like Hitler was the consequence of the Treaty of Versailles.

I am not saying Putin is another Hitler but the consequences could be the same because Putin will never compromise. The way to win the peace is through winning hearts and minds of leaders and populations. This is a slow organic process which requires vast reserves of patience and diplomacy. Pope John Paul II was a great believer in loving the "other", this is a good place to start. As I see it, the other two requirements in diplomacy are the desire to understand the others point of view and the truth-trust-honesty principle.

In a world of nuclear weapons, humanity must either unite or it will destroy itself and the unfortunate creatures that must live on this planet with us.

Good point, never thought of it that way

realitykeeper

Black Swan wrote: »

Comparing a few words exchanged between Yeltsin and Clinton to the extraordinary terms and conditions placed upon Germany with the Treaty of Versailles is like comparing a small pebble to a mountain range metaphorically. The Treaty had 440 articles that placed extraordinary financial obligations (reparations) upon Germany, essentially bankrupting the nation then, and into the future. Major land concessions occurred, including all overseas colonies rich with material resources. Germany fell into a major depression, with tens of thousands unemployed, along with a limitation of their military to 100 thousand, adding to those numbers thousands of unemployed military personnel.

It is true that Germany suffered terribly after the first world war but so did Russia after the collapse of communism. The Americans could have done much more to help the Russians but instead they played politics.

realitykeeper

sin_city wrote: »

Blame for Putin? Putin helped avoid a conflict in Syria by standing up to the US's BS weapons claims.

I am not taking sides. There is good and evil on both sides of any conflict.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Blame for Putin? Putin helped avoid a conflict in Syria by standing up to the US's BS weapons claims.

It's currently the worst conflict in the world, the greatest humanitarian disaster and the largest refugee crisis.

Russia continues to sell arms to Assad and fulfill previous arms contracts. They also obstructed UN resolutions throughout the conflict for political reasons.

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's currently the worst conflict in the world, the greatest humanitarian disaster and the largest refugee crisis.

Russia continues to sell arms to Assad and fulfill previous arms contracts. They also obstructed UN resolutions throughout the conflict for political reasons.

I'm sure it is still way better than World War 3.

If Assad is ok for Kerry and his wife to have dinner with a few years ago then what the hell happened for him to make such a U turn?

Russia had always supported Assad as far as I know so in my opinion the US is way more to blame for this than Russia.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

I'm sure it is still way better than World War 3.

Realistically we are further away from a world war than ever before. The continuance of the conflict is a much greater threat to regional stability.

Most countries want peace in the region and a stable Syria - however they cannot support Assad because he has been responsible for the deaths of so many and the fracturing of his own country

If Assad is ok for Kerry and his wife to have dinner with a few years ago then what the hell happened for him to make such a U turn?

This is what happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Russia had always supported Assad as far as I know so in my opinion the US is way more to blame for this than Russia.

Russia supports Assad for purely political reasons. The US has been strongly criticised for directly supporting dictators - this criticism is silent when it comes to Russia - it can't be one way traffic.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

Realistically we are further away from a world war than ever before. The continuance of the conflict is a much greater threat to regional stability.

Most countries want peace in the region and a stable Syria - however they cannot support Assad because he has been responsible for the deaths of so many and the fracturing of his own country




This is what happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_civil_war



Russia supports Assad for purely political reasons. The US has been strongly criticised for directly supporting dictators - this criticism is silent when it comes to Russia - it can't be one way traffic.

So America is supplying arms to Al-Qaeda because of the humanitarian issue? They wanted to bomb Syria and kill Syrians to stop Syrians from dying?
Or perhaps it was because of the chemical weapons, even though America has been using them throughout history.

This is about a gas pipeline plain and simple. You might accuse Russia of playing politics, but what the hell would you call what America is doing.

Russia is not breaking international law by supplying arms, America is.
This war would have been over ages ago if the west were not propping up the "freedom fighters" for so long.

I don't disagree it is a humanitarian DISASTER, but it is this way because of the west's interference.

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is what happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

I thought this is what happened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

So America is supplying arms to Al-Qaeda because of the humanitarian issue?

They aren't

They wanted to bomb Syria and kill Syrians to stop Syrians from dying?

Punitive strikes against Assads war machinery

This is about a gas pipeline plain and simple.

A conspiracy theory

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

I thought this is what happened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

This is brought up in many threads and has been addressed many times. It's Wesley Clarke's personal view on the Bush admin and a hypothetical Neocon plan or doctrine which pretty much failed spectacularly at the first hurdle.

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is brought up in many threads and has been addressed many times. It's Wesley Clarke's personal view on the Bush admin and a hypothetical Neocon plan or doctrine which pretty much failed spectacularly at the first hurdle.

Hypothetical???? Oh no.

You do know that other sources of news media exist outside Fox and the BBC, right?

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Hypothetical???? Oh no.

Yes, hypothetical. Iraq was the first target, after that other countries would follow suit (and fall easily). Wasn't so much a plan as a way of thinking - democracy through force brought to us by Rove and Cheney

Iraq put a pin in all that.

Conspiracy theorists and hardline US cynics have latched onto the interview heavily to try and explain away modern events.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes, hypothetical. Iraq was the first target, after that other countries would follow suit (and fall easily). Wasn't so much a plan as a way of thinking - democracy through force brought to us by Rove and Cheney

Iraq put a pin in all that.

Conspiracy theorists and hardline US cynics have latched onto the interview heavily to try and explain away modern events.

LOL. How about Libya?

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes, hypothetical. Iraq was the first target, after that other countries would follow suit (and fall easily). Wasn't so much a plan as a way of thinking - democracy through force brought to us by Rove and Cheney

Iraq put a pin in all that.

Conspiracy theorists and hardline US cynics have latched onto the interview heavily to try and explain away modern events.

The term "Conspiracy theorist" has been used by many to degrade many opinions.

Its a get out clause to say someone's opinion doesn't count.

I'm a great lover of history and I am fascinated by the US's transformation in a police state. It's just the end of another empire. It's exciting watching it play out.

I'm only cynical by deceit. I know exactly where Russia stands. I think China is becoming a country with more freedom.

The US is pushing the war on terror rubbish and spreading democracy.

When I say the US, I mean the Western powers or whoever is running them.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

They aren't


Punitive strikes against Assads war machinery



A conspiracy theory

:rolleyes:

Oh yes they are
http://tavernkeepers.com/wall-street-journal-weapons-supplied-to-rebels-in-syria-now-in-the-hands-of-al-qaeda/

Killing civilians to save civilians
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/syria-civilians-violence_b_3826961.html

Qatar backing rebels (the ones who want the pipeline)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86e3f28e-be3a-11e2-bb35-00144feab7de.html

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

LOL. How about Libya?

Libya was intervention with the backing of the UN, NATO, Arab league, and permanent members Russia and China

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

The term "Conspiracy theorist" has been used by many to degrade many opinions.

Its a get out clause to say someone's opinion doesn't count.

I'm a great lover of history and I am fascinated by the US's transformation in a police state. It's just the end of another empire. It's exciting watching it play out.

I'm only cynical by deceit. I know exactly where Russia stands. I think China is becoming a country with more freedom.

The US is pushing the war on terror rubbish and spreading democracy.

When I say the US, I mean the Western powers or whoever is running them.

Sounds like you've already chosen the target and are just pulling the string

A dangerous thing with history and objectivity if you ask me

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

Libya was intervention with the backing of the UN, NATO, Arab league, and permanent members Russia and China

And then they murdered Gaddafi. Which was illegal and not part of eh Nato agreement. They tricked the Chinese and Russians.
Neither will be fooled again.

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Oh yes they are
http://tavernkeepers.com/wall-street-journal-weapons-supplied-to-rebels-in-syria-now-in-the-hands-of-al-qaeda/

Killing civilians to save civilians
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/syria-civilians-violence_b_3826961.html

Qatar backing rebels (the ones who want the pipeline)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86e3f28e-be3a-11e2-bb35-00144feab7de.html

If you are making the point that the US supports Al Qaeda - they don't. Neither do they support Al Nusra, many of the martyrs brigades, and countless foreign jihadists who have arrived in Syria in the last year and a half.

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

And then they murdered Gaddafi. Which was illegal and not part of eh Nato agreement. They tricked the Chinese and Russians.
Neither will be fooled again.

They didn't murder Gadaffi his own people did. They certainly helped them reach that point - especially the big push on Tripoli in August, if it weren't for that it would probably have ground to a total stalemate or worse.

The Chinese and Russians weren't "tricked" in any sense, they were well aware of the situation and I can locate and quote their statements on Gadaffi and the uprising if you would like.

They did however lose sizable contracts, esp. the Russians.

Syria is a whole different beast.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

They didn't murder Gadaffi his own people did. They certainly helped them reach that point - especially the big push on Tripoli in August, if it weren't for that it would probably have ground to a total stalemate or worse.

The Chinese and Russians weren't "tricked" in any sense, they were well aware of the situation and I can locate and quote their statements on Gadaffi and the uprising if you would like.

They did however lose sizable contracts, esp. the Russians.

Syria is a whole different beast.

What alternative reality are you living in Jonny?


He died via drone strike.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/20/obama-qaddafi-death-ends-long-and-painful-chapter-in-libya/

Putin Lashes out at America for killing Gaddafi

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8958475/Vladimir-Putin-lashes-out-at-America-for-killing-Gaddafi-and-backing-protests.html

I'm not going to be rude, I used to be pro America and thought if they are doing something there must be a good reason. America are the good guys after all.

Until I came up against people who challenged what I was saying. Then I did my own research and stopped parroting what the main stream media said.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you are making the point that the US supports Al Qaeda - they don't. Neither do they support Al Nusra, many of the martyrs brigades, and countless foreign jihadists who have arrived in Syria in the last year and a half.

My mistake, the christian murdering heart eating freedom fighters.

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

What alternative reality are you living in Jonny?


He died via drone strike.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/20/obama-qaddafi-death-ends-long-and-painful-chapter-in-libya/

No he didn't, he was killed by rebels. There is a video of it if the mod will allow me link it, otherwise I can choose the edited video.

Until I came up against people who challenged what I was saying. Then I did my own research and stopped parroting what the main stream media said.

You've just linked Fox News, an English speaking propaganda outlet run by Moscow and a blog site

They aren't exactly the most credible sources

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

No he didn't, he was killed by rebels. There is a video of it if the mod will allow me link it, otherwise I can choose the edited video.



You've just linked Fox News, an English speaking propaganda outlet run by Moscow and a blog site

They aren't exactly the most credible sources

Nothing wrong with the sources. Who told you RT is a propaganda outlet? Do you ever even watch it? You should, they have actual news and not what kim kardashian had for breakfast.
Anyway won't spoonfeed you anymore, you can do your own research.
But here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839964/Col-Gaddafi-killed-convoy-bombed-by-drone-flown-by-pilot-in-Las-Vegas.html

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

Nothing wrong with the sources. Who told you RT is a propaganda outlet? Do you ever even watch it? You should, they have actual news and not what kim kardashian had for breakfast.
Anyway won't spoonfeed you anymore, you can do your own research.
But here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839964/Col-Gaddafi-killed-convoy-bombed-by-drone-flown-by-pilot-in-Las-Vegas.html

I'm very familiar with RT thanks, and no, it's not "real" news any more than Fox is.

Gadaffi wasn't killed by a drone, I'll link the video later of his unfortunate last moments.

seanie_c

realitykeeper wrote: »

Back in the nineties when the US were bombing Serbia....

Yeltsin was nothing more than a drunk that oversaw the privatization of Russian industry and impoverishment of Russian people, much to the delight of western financiers.

The reality is, Russian people suffered greatly after the collapse of USSR and westerners took full advantage of it by stealing whatever resources they had.

For westerners now to claim Putin is a terrible leader for trying to rebuild Russia using Russian resources is just laughable.

He's no saint but I think westerners need to get their own house in order first before they lecture other countries.

You don't see Americans selling off their resources to foreign bankers, do you? But there's nothing wrong with that.

I get sick listening to the same pundits on TV talking about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom this, freedom that...

It's utterly retarded to me when you look at Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and countless other people that take on the criminal enterprise running the US only to become labelled terrorists.

If you believe everything the US mainstream media are telling you, you're not in touch with reality.

Guyanachronism

Surely the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis when the USA backed Yeltsin when he exceeded his powers over the Duma is a more likely cause of Putins power.

The result was a massive centralisation of power into the office of the president.

Correction at the time they were still called the Congress and Sumpreme Soviet rather than Duma.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm very familiar with RT thanks, and no, it's not "real" news any more than Fox is.

Gadaffi wasn't killed by a drone, I'll link the video later of his unfortunate last moments.

Essentially this was regime change, Russia & China didn't sign up for that.

The Chinese and Russians weren't "tricked" in any sense

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

Essentially this was regime change, Russia & China didn't sign up for that.

Odd, they instantly recognised the new transitional council in August before Gadaffi was even dead. Both nations quickly offering their services to rebuild the country - ironically from the billions that the Gadaffi family stole and siphoned out of the country into foreign bank accounts and funds.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

Odd, they instantly recognised the new transitional council in August before Gadaffi was even dead. Both nations quickly offering their services to rebuild the country - ironically from the billions that the Gadaffi family stole and siphoned out of the country into foreign bank accounts and funds.

But it was a war crime Jonny. US Airforce (sorry Al-Qaeda Airforce http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html ) assisted in the murder of Gaddafi.

Does international law now mean nothing? It only applies when it suits America's agenda?

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

But it was a war crime Jonny. US Airforce (sorry Al-Qaeda Airforce http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html ) assisted in the murder of Gaddafi.

Carefully changed what you claimed there.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

Carefully changed what you claimed there.

I'm not changing anything. America are responsible for the murder of Gaddafi. As I originally said, it was always their intention.

You claimed China and Russia knew exactly what was going on, which is not the case. Putin lashed out at the US when this happened.
Hillary was laughing about it.

Now I'm not saying Gaddafi was any saint, but the Americans are war criminals, by definition.

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

I'm not changing anything. America are responsible for the murder of Gaddafi. As I originally said, it was always their intention.

Gadaffi was shot dead. By rebels.

His convoy was bombed by a US drone, French fighter jets and attacked by rebel forces. So he was indirectly killed by the US, France and Libyans, supported by the UK, the UN, the Arab league and so on.

Putin lashed out at the US when this happened.

Putin is the consummate politician playing a large nationalist home crowd. I would be astonished if he ever missed an opportunity to criticise the US/West.

MonaPizza

realitykeeper wrote: »

Back in the nineties when the US were bombing Serbia, I recall the Russians were very angry about that because the Serbs are their fellow Slavs. Boris Yeltsin was especially apoplectic and it seemed to me that Bill Clinton took delight in aggravating him. At the time, Russia was on its knees after the collapse of communism so they could not face down the Americans like they did with Syria recently.
I believe that is the reason Boris Yeltsin selected Putin as his successor. Putin was a young KGB operative and a very unlikely choice. So why was he chosen? Could it have been as a direct consequence of Clinton rubbing Yeltsin s `face in the proverbial dirt? Yeltsin saw an uncompromising and cunning man in Putin. In other words, Putin was selected out of anger and resentment. Yeltsin was in many ways a good man but he was not thinking peace when he appointed Putin.
Over the years, several US Presidents have spoken to Putin about their wish to renegotiate the nuclear disarmament agreements to allow them to resume the US star wars program. Putin would not agree, even though the star wars program was a defensive program rather than an offensive one.
What Barack Obama needs to understand about Putin, is that he is the consequence of Clinton`s belittling and and humiliating Yeltsin on the world stage - just like Hitler was the consequence of the Treaty of Versailles.

I am not saying Putin is another Hitler but the consequences could be the same because Putin will never compromise. The way to win the peace is through winning hearts and minds of leaders and populations. This is a slow organic process which requires vast reserves of patience and diplomacy. Pope John Paul II was a great believer in loving the "other", this is a good place to start. As I see it, the other two requirements in diplomacy are the desire to understand the others point of view and the truth-trust-honesty principle.

In a world of nuclear weapons, humanity must either unite or it will destroy itself and the unfortunate creatures that must live on this planet with us.

If the Russians were bombing Haiti or Costa Rica do you think the US leaders would not be non-plussed?

Face down Russia? WTF are you talking about? Syria is an ally of Russia. Why shouldn't they attempt to protect a friend of theirs against US/UK/French attempts to re-occupy the place? Read some history pal. The French want Lebanon and Syria back. The Brits want Iraq back. The US want to be the godfather of this.

sin_city

We should try to get Jonny to move forward here.

I'll help you out. They didn't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That's a start.

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

Face down Russia? WTF are you talking about? Syria is an ally of Russia. Why shouldn't they attempt to protect a friend of theirs against US/UK/French attempts to re-occupy the place? Read some history pal. The French want Lebanon and Syria back. The Brits want Iraq back. The US want to be the godfather of this.

Yes, Cameron wants to send troops back into Basra, Hollande wants to plant the French flag in Damascus after 70 odd years and Merkel wants to reoccupy Poland and Russia.. naturally

realitykeeper

seanie_c wrote: »

Yeltsin was nothing more than a drunk that oversaw the privatization of Russian industry and impoverishment of Russian people, much to the delight of western financiers.
If you believe everything the US mainstream media are telling you, you're not in touch with reality.

Yeltsin was a drunk but that in itself does not make one a bad person necessarily. The collapse of communism under the burden of its own inefficiencies were the reason for the hardships in Russia in the early nineties. Thanks to capitalism, things are much better there now. You mention the delight of the western financiers, does this mean you are happy for them or jealous? Regarding US mainstream media, I believe somethings they tell me and I do not believe other things. Of course, I would say precisely the same thing with regard to Russia Today, France 24, Aljazera, RTE etc.

realitykeeper

MonaPizza wrote: »

If the Russians were bombing Haiti or Costa Rica do you think the US leaders would not be non-plussed?

Face down Russia? WTF are you talking about? Syria is an ally of Russia. Why shouldn't they attempt to protect a friend of theirs against US/UK/French attempts to re-occupy the place? Read some history pal. The French want Lebanon and Syria back. The Brits want Iraq back. The US want to be the godfather of this.

Your entire argument is premised on the false assumption that I am taking sides. I readily accept that the Americans, the Russians, the Syrian Government and the rebels all have legitimate concerns and they all have some unreasonable prejudices also. None of the above have a monopoly on being right. The challenge for those concerned is to try separating the good from the evil without being distracted by squabbles based on ethnicity or other irrelevancies.
Regarding your suggestion that I read some history, what a wonderful idea. I think I will bud.