Who is employing private armies/mercenaries in Ukraine?
excerpt:
We saw in Iraq how private security forces can get out of control. Whenever you are in a politically sensitive, a military sensitive situation the last thing you want is private security out there, because they can actually profit by an expanded conflict. They can stir up a war and then profit from it, Kucinich said.
The former US Representative said he is completely against the use of private security companies in any conflicts.
If oligarchs want to hire people to protect them, they have a right to do that. But if nations bring in private armies you are looking at combustible material here because there is no control. The private armies will pursue private interests. They don't care about anything except making more money. And the more war there is, the more money they make, Kucinich underlined.
The big question is who exactly is financing the deployment of such private armies in Ukraine, the politician noted.
You know the only money that Ukraine is getting right now is from the IMF. Who is paying these private armies?
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140409/189123989/OPINION-US-Mercenaries-Could-Start-All-Out-War-In-Ukraine-for.html
------------
My guess --- it's the same private interests that now own/run our government.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)Of course, it's early in the day, yet. The gatekeepers will be along shortly to point out that Ria Novosti is not a credible source because.....well, just because.
Never mind that a wide range of credible sources all over the net are pointing out the same thing...that the US Gov't. recognizes a COUP that put in place a bunch of neo-fascists, and yet howls about, and calls illegitimate, a REFERENDUM where the PEOPLE chose Russia over Wall Street thugs and the IMF.
This is just same ol', same ol'. Anyone who has read John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" will understand. Regime change for the benefit of the 1%. And anything that has the filthy hands of the IMF in it should be rejected immediately.
And former Rep. Kucinich is exactly right when he says, "...if nations bring in private armies you are looking at combustible material here because there is no control. The private armies will pursue private interests. They don't care about anything except making more money. And the more war there is, the more money they make, emphasis added.
Igel
(35,300 posts)To evaluate a sentence you assume everything is true.
Give people a bunch of assertions like "Hitler was not born on 5/16/1876" and test them a few days later and more will say that Hitler was born on 5/16/1876 than would deny it. Before we add a negation, we first posit the positive. Still, that's a proposition that can be denied. You can say, "Yes, he was" or "No, he wasn't." The brain can easily deny it. Still, few days later there are two parts to the proposition: the assertion and the denial. If you forget the assertion, the denial's gone as well and you draw a blank. If you forget the denial, you remember the assertion as true. It's why test questions with "no" in them are considered somehow bad--students forget that part or really can't process something that complicated. We like to think it's the latter because it gets them better grades. It's both.
It's worse with embedded propositions. They're sheltered. "Has John stopped beating his wife?" You can't say "Yes, he has" or "No, he hasn't" and mean anything more than "he's stopped" or "he hasn't." You have to stop and realize there's a presupposition you have to accept as true in order to process the rest of the sentence. It's not a simple denial or affirmation, you have to ignore the question to say, "He hasn't ever beaten his wife." If you have no information about John's behavior towards his wife, then all you have is a presupposition that your brain treats as an assertion. Your take-away message is, "John beats, or at least used to beat, his wife." You've taken the unproven, buried presupposition as true. That middle ground, "I have no information so I'll ignore it" is a hard spot to stay in.
It's why "What's the current barnyard animal that Michelle is having sex with?" might be offensive, esp. if you are (D) and interpret "Michelle" to mean "Michelle Obama" (and not Bachmann; or if you're rabid (R) and interpret it to mean "Bachman" and not "Obama" . You unpack the question as, "Michelle's has had at least one animal in the past that she's boffed. She's moved on from that one and now has another one. Which is that current one?" You have to ignore the task your brain takes up and reach down and deny the presupposition. It's easy when the presupposition if offensive and provokes an emotional reaction.
It's harder when the presupposition is neutral and you have no opinion or information about it.
It's harder yet when the presupposition has already been entertained as true. This is taken as a secondary source of information. You now have two witnesses. That neutral, "I don't know" space--already hard to reach--is under clear assault.
It's a real challenge to even good critical thinking skills to reach down and question an unproven presupposition when you want to agree with it because agreeing with it reinforces something else you think or want to think is true.
TheJames
(120 posts)I for one, appreciate it, in all seriousness. I didn't, previously, know the name and precise operation of this common logical fallacy.
cprise
(8,445 posts)In any case, it may be easier to simply 'unpack' by looking up Kucinich's statements directly than to spend 5+ lengthy paragraphs insinuating some deep, dark motive in the OP while sidestepping the actual content.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)that I'll be pissed when I find out