The Ukraine thingy


Off-Topic Discussions

1,151 to 1,200 of 2,002 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

Musical break!


OK,i present to you our next presidential candidate,Yulia Timoshenko.
While Poroshenko is deliberately vague,most of this girl's promises are just impossible.
And there are LOTS of them.
So let's get started,shall we?

a)Provide national safety and security!(as someone who never served in an army sees it)
1)New military doctrine(well,that makes sense)
2)Spend 5% GDP on military.
3)Create well-equipped(who pays?)army and national guard(easier said than done,but idea is solid.Poland will not always be peaceful,they have imperial ambitions too)
4 and 5)benefits to military personnel
6 and 7)EU-integration stuff.Including membership.(yeah,right)

b)Crimea is Ukraine
1)Liberate Crimea from russian occupation(wait,wot?you and what army?)
2)demand compensation
3)archive FULL economic,energy and informational independence from RF.(somehow)
Have good relations with non-Putin Russia(i am dead.(censored).serious)
4)Create closed nuclear cycle(WTF?How?Why?What relevance?),dig more.

c)New rules on....how to rule(god russian language is strange)
Supression of old government officials and this little gem:
Cut government consumption by half(HOW?!Give us SOMETHING,girl!)
.
.
.
.
And six more paragraphs like that.
Collins was right.


Third option is simple.And hardest.
Fight the central government,liberate southeast from them,and unify with RF somehow.
And even if you succeed it will get FAR worse before it gets better.
My personal recommendation would be:RUN.


Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:

Sadly, I've seen a number of people on the Internet who claim that fascism is just as lefty as communism and that the feud between them is just a struggle to control poor people and oppress the rich.

I'm afraid to ask our neighborhood goblin what he thinks of that idea.

Off the top of my head? I'd think you've been reading Lyndon Larouche.

Nope, part of that crowd of Baen Publishing authors who have been complaining that they aren't being given Hugo awards because of a Vast Liberal Conspiracy. They are happy to tell you that it is all the Fault of the Democrats. Also, Democrats are fascist-commie bad people who hate America.

Is Larouche a libertarian, or a conspiracy theorist? (Or both?) all I can dredge up from the memory banks is something about '... And the rest of the Larouchites (cue uproarious laughter)'

Ah, much more pedestrian stuff. I don't think Larouche qualifies as a libertarian, per se, but he's definitely got the "fascism and communism were both ploys of the international banking elite" thing down.

Like I said, it was off the top of my head.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Depends on what you mean. No, we shouldn't invade russia, of course. We - as people - should support the groups working against his oppression and for social change. A part of that is not making excuses for the regime.

You know, westerners talking about "supporting change" and "fighting oppression" is what has gotten the world to this point. Exporting morality, religion, justice, and social mores has made more enemies than you can possibly imagine. You define Putin's rule as oppression. I ask two things: are you sure? And if so - what should the west do about it? Do you think the Russians - the people, not the government - would open their arms to foreigners coming in and TELLING them you're going to show them the right way to live their lives and treat others? I know the answer already.

Gaberlunzie wrote:

I'm not a nationalist. Why should I care what "moral high horse" my nation state has or hasn't?

I'm gay, and as part of that group, YES I have a "moral high ground" on the people trying to criminalize my existence. I'm working class, and as part of that group, YES I have a "moral high ground" on the people exploiting me and my class.

Just because there are oligarchs and homophobes in power in my country too doesn't mean I have to make excuses for the same thing happening in other countries.

They should all be stripped of power and locked up in a cell.

So, basically, we need a global policeman, right? Some group (or nation?) with the moral certitude to make change around the globe? To show the vast unwashed bulk of humanity the right way to live, how to think, how to act? Like missionaries, sent unto the savages?

You don't have to make excuses for what's happening in other countries. But stay out of their business! Holy s#!t, take a look at what exporting western cultures and values has done to the world! And why are you just focusing on how Russia treats gay people? How about in Africa, are you going to fix that too? How about the muslim world? Another crusade to fix things? China? More gunboat diplomacy?

No, Gaberlunzie, we, the west, will make things better when we finally turn an eye upon ourselves and fix our own issues. And when we stay out of others' affairs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Comrade Lunzie is talking about international solidarity rather than gunboat diplomacy, Comrade Locke.

Anyway, another fun article:

Sorry America, Ukraine Isn't All About You

More interesting for its discussion of Sexy Putin in the context of Russian politics than in international affairs or the Ukraine thingy.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I think Comrade Lunzie is talking about international solidarity

I think he knows nothing about LGBT rights and opression of them here other than what's feed to him by mass media.

But of course he has an opinion.
Everyone has.
Even me!
JohnLocke wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter, international solidarity under whose moral, political and economic values? Who is funding this movement, and what are their aims? How will they achieve their aims around the world?

I just love when people are asking the right questions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Comrade Anklebiter, international solidarity under whose moral, political and economic values? Who is funding this movement, and what are their aims? How will they achieve their aims around the world?

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
I think he knows nothing about LGBT rights and opression of them here other than what's feed to him by mass media.

See, that is what worries me. There was a full-court press PR campaign against Putin (and Russia) prior to the Sochi games over gay rights issues. In retrospect, it had nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with setting up Russia as the next big enemy for the west to "face down". They'd rather meddle in affairs they don't understand, on the other side of the globe, than deal with issues here at home. We have people here - native people - who are forced to live on reserves, without adequate water, food, education. And we're worried about Pussy Riot desecrating some church? Holy crap.


JohnLocke wrote:
You know, westerners talking about "supporting change" and "fighting oppression" is what has gotten the world to this point. Exporting morality, religion, justice, and social mores has made more enemies than you can possibly imagine.

No, capitalists exporting their economic system has gotten the world to this point.

Sometimes "fighting opression" is used as an argument for that by capitalists and their lackeys, but that's something completely different.
Supporting anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian movements and organizations in Russia, like CRAS-IWA and similar groups, is something completely different from supporting the capitalist imperialism the US stands for.

Quote:
You define Putin's rule as oppression. I ask two things: are you sure? And if so - what should the west do about it?

1. Yes.

2. "The west" is not an entity, it is a geographical area with a LOT of entities. "The west" shouldn't do anything - the global working class should do a revolution. And part of that is showing solidarity with the working class of russia, which Putin oppresses.
And the same can be said for the various other dimensions of oppression, of course.

Quote:
Do you think the Russians - the people, not the government - would open their arms to foreigners coming in and TELLING them you're going to show them the right way to live their lives and treat others? I know the answer already.

And that's a big reason not to do something like invade russia. But, THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE IS NOT A UNIFIED GROUP WHICH UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTS PUTIN.

And even if he had, that does NOT mean what the plutocracy does isn't oppression.

And no, allowing lynching of HBTQ people isn't some part of "culture" that we should respect. I have friends there. I worry for their lives. And there's no way on earth someone is going to get away with saying "well that's just their culture and we shouldn't oppose them because of it!".

Quote:

So, basically, we need a global policeman, right?

Some group (or nation?) with the moral certitude to make change around the globe? To show the vast unwashed bulk of humanity the right way to live, how to think, how to act? Like missionaries, sent unto the savages?

Are you consciously trying to be this dense?

In response to me saying I'm not a nationalist you imply that I want some nation to rule the world?

WE AS PEOPLE SHOULD SUPPORT THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE'S STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM FROM OPPRESSION.

Stop being so frakkin' locked up in nations, acting as if I'm claiming a nation should do this or should do that or acting as if nations by their very existence automatically deserves some specific respect and that what's done in a nations name is somehow more legitimate than if done by individual people.

Quote:
You don't have to make excuses for what's happening in other countries. But stay out of their business!

You keep making excuses, and that's what I'm reacting to. And as long as they're attacking my class it is my business. Also, what are you even doing in this thread? Shouldn't you stay out of what's happening in Ukraine?

Quote:
Holy s#!t, take a look at what exporting western cultures and values has done to the world!

"Western values" is not a single solid thing. That's just a stupid way to defend bullcrap. "Oh look we exported capitalism which exploits people and while you're against that it's western and so is women's rights so therefore supporting women's rights groups in saudi arabia is wroooong!!!!".

Quote:
And why are you just focusing on how Russia treats gay people? How about in Africa, are you going to fix that too?

Because YOU made the question "what problems have Putin caused" and the statement "Putin isn't that bad".

If this had been a thread about Africa, I would have discussed Africa. If you had said "Omar al-Bashir isn't that bad", I would have discussed al-Bashir.

It is YOU who keep defending undefensible s##$ with nationalist claims about that we shouldn't oppose oppression outside of our own countries. Which is full-on bullcrap and you know it.

Or would you had preferred that the jews were completely exterminated?


JohnLocke wrote:

There was a full-court press PR campaign against Putin (and Russia) prior to the Sochi games over gay rights issues.

Succesful,i might add.

Made more stupid because gayness isn't even a felony here.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Not going to respond to Vlad's bullcrap because he's scum

That's mature,adult way to have a discussion.

Gaberlunzie wrote:
but I do know a gay person and a trans person living in Russia right now.

Oh,but i knew more of them,and from the time when it wasn't in fashion.

Two of my girlfriends were bi,for(censured)'s sake.
And some guy from half a world away talks to me about opression.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
But, THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE IS NOT A UNIFIED GROUP WHICH UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTS PUTIN.

Yep.

Something like 80% of them.
Ever heard of democracy?

Gaberlunzie wrote:
WE AS PEOPLE SHOULD SUPPORT THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE'S STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM FROM OPPRESSION

Who said it exists?


Gaberlunzie, you sound like an idealist. I wish I still was one of those. I've made you angry, and I apologize.

I'm not trying to be dense or obtuse. I was trying to be provocative, to see what your response would be. Look, I've got my own visceral reactions to unfairness around the world. I'm part native, on my Mom's side, and Coptic Egyptian on my Dad's. I see, first hand, how native people here are forced to live, and I think to myself "why don't we fix this first, before we worry about the affairs of other nations?". I see a brutal military coup sweep away democratic reforms in my Dad's homeland. A coup no-one here says anything about.

I was a soldier with the Canadian forces. I was sent to Afghanistan for thirteen months. That opened my eyes to the futility of our presence there. As much as the people disliked the Taliban, they HATED us. We were foreigners, come to their country, imposing our will and political systems and moral code. That had a powerful effect on my thought processes, my emotional reactions.

I'm in this thread because my nation - Canada - has seen fit not only to antagonize Russia with sanctions and bellicose statements, but has supplied military and financial aid to the region, further destabilizing things. I assure you, my MP has heard far more from me than this thread has.

Your last comment was a bit of a low blow, but I can turn it around a little. Did you know that, had world war one ended differently, there may never have been a Nazi Germany? American intervention turned the tide against Germany, eventually leading to the immoral and humiliating Versailles treaty. Those stipulations created the atmosphere which gave rise to Nazism. Had the US stayed out - unswayed by lies in the media of German soldiers murdering babies, for example - the world might have been a very different place. How many mistakes now - even if they are well-intentioned - might come back and bite us in the ass?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Made more stupid because gayness isn't even a felony here."

Oh, well that's all right then. As long as just being gay isn't actually criminal, there is obviously no oppression.


thejeff wrote:


Oh, well that's all right then. As long as just being gay isn't actually criminal, there is obviously no oppression.

Yep.They are allowed to live without threat of persecution.

Well,two decades ago it WAS a felony,but only for men.
I don't even know why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Oh, well that's all right then. As long as just being gay isn't actually criminal, there is obviously no oppression.

Yep.They are allowed to live without threat of persecution.

Well,two decades ago it WAS a felony,but only for men.
I don't even know why.

There's a hell of a long difference between "isn't even a felony" and "allowed to live without threat of persecution".

A difference between reality and legality that you've shown little sign of acknowledging in many contexts. Except when it suits your purposes, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter, international solidarity under whose moral, political and economic values?

There's no "who's" because as you know, working class organizing isn't some global organization, it's a wide movement and has been for the last few hundred years.

Quote:
Who is funding this movement, and what are their aims?

Seeing as how we are the working class, we don't really have that much funds compared to the owning class. That's kind of the reason.

Quote:
How will they achieve their aims around the world?

Through global revolution, though I think it mostly works through kind of a "revolutionary reformism"; revolutionary tactics and acts move more power from the owning class to the working class, which in the long term forces the government to act in a way that's beneficial to the working class, and so it goes on.

The long-term aim is of course worker control over the means of production, the short-term a more reasonable economic standard. And of course we've had great progress; the worker movements have gotten rid of child labor and slavery in large parts of the world, raised the standard of living etc.

At least in theory; in practice the struggle has had it's ups and lows, and I'm glad to be from an area we're we've had a strong worker's movement, which gave us more or less free healthcare, five weeks payd leave per year, general suffrage, pensions et cetera, and got rid of child labor and day wages (though the second has come back unfortunately, as the worker's movement has been weakened globally and locally).

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
There was a full-court press PR campaign against Putin (and Russia) prior to the Sochi games over gay rights issues. In retrospect, it had nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with setting up Russia as the next big enemy for the west to "face down".

Of course that's why the media talked about it. It's not why HBTQ groups in russia were talking about it, and they've been talking about it for a long time. It's just that as long as Russia is a good trade partner with western capitalists, media will silence the voices of the oppressed in Russia. We who are part of the LGBT community have known about it for a long time, and opposed the russian state because of it for a long time.

Quote:
They'd rather meddle in affairs they don't understand, on the other side of the globe, than deal with issues here at home.

Again, it's not on the other side of the globe for me. It's about 480 miles from me, shorter distance than to several of my friends who live in my country.

Quote:


We have people here - native people - who are forced to live on reserves, without adequate water, food, education. And we're worried about Pussy Riot desecrating some church? Holy crap.

By your logic, why should I care about people starving in the US? They're on the other side of the globe.

Thing is, unlike you I'm not some nationalist frakk, so I don't say "hey, that's american culture, so I guess I shouldn't critizice it, I can't stand here in my country and export my morals of people-shouldn't-starve-in-a-rich-country to the people of the US".
I support the US people's struggles, and if some crapper goes around saying that "hey, Bush & Obama aint's so bad" they'll catch the same flak.


thejeff wrote:

"allowed to live without threat of persecution".

You see,there are laws.For example,if you get severely beaten because of your sexual orientation here,that's two more years jail time for attacker.

Also constitution article 29.2 and 29.3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
Gaberlunzie, you sound like an idealist. I wish I still was one of those. I've made you angry, and I apologize.

Nope, not an idealist. Libertarianism is idealistic; marxism is materialistic.

Quote:
I was trying to be provocative, to see what your response would be.

Which is a really stupid thing to do.

Quote:
I'm part native, on my Mom's side, and Coptic Egyptian on my Dad's. I see, first hand, how native people here are forced to live, and I think to myself "why don't we fix this first, before we worry about the affairs of other nations?".

Yeah, and if people in Sweden go around saying the persecution and oppression of natives in the US "hasn't been so bad" or that we shouldn't criticize the US for it since it's another country, I'll tell them they're a#@#!&@s and that they should f&$+ off.

I haven't critiziced you for not caring about Russia's betrodden, what you are doing isn't not acting on the oppression of minorities and the working class in Russia, you've actively claimed it isn't so bad.

There's a world of difference.

Quote:
I see a brutal military coup sweep away democratic reforms in my Dad's homeland. A coup no-one here says anything about.

Because "here" in this thread egypt isn't discussed. You'll see there's been LOADS of talk about the egyptian coup in threads about the Arab spring, for example.

Quote:
That opened my eyes to the futility of our presence there. As much as the people disliked the Taliban, they HATED us.

Which is because you invaded, which is a very different thing to, say, supporting afghanistanian human rights group that work to give women basic human rights.

Quote:
We were foreigners, come to their country, imposing our will and political systems and moral code.

The US didn't enforce any moral code. Political systems and economy, yes, any morals, no, because the US nation state doesn't have any morals past profit.

Quote:


I'm in this thread because my nation - Canada - has seen fit not only to antagonize Russia with sanctions and bellicose statements, but has supplied military and financial aid to the region, further destabilizing things.

And I'm 100% against NATOs and the US' dabbling in Ukraine and their support for a neonazi coup d'etat. As I've posted repeatedly.

But recognizing that those are horrible vile things in no way means that Putin "isn't so bad".

Quote:
Did you know that, had world war one ended differently, there may never have been a Nazi Germany?

Yes.

Quote:
American intervention turned the tide against Germany, eventually leading to the immoral and humiliating Versailles treaty.

Which commies opposed already back then; it's a completely pointless argument for some nationalistic "don't care what happens in other countries".

Quote:
Those stipulations created the atmosphere which gave rise to Nazism. Had the US stayed out - unswayed by lies in the media of German soldiers murdering babies, for example - the world might have been a very different place. How many mistakes now - even if they are well-intentioned - might come back and bite us in the ass?

Hence why I've never once - in this thread or anywhere else - supported nationalistic military or economic oppression.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I think Comrade Lunzie is talking about international solidarity

I think he knows nothing about LGBT rights and opression of them here other than what's feed to him by mass media.

But of course he has an opinion.
Everyone has.
Even me!
JohnLocke wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter, international solidarity under whose moral, political and economic values? Who is funding this movement, and what are their aims? How will they achieve their aims around the world?

I just love when people are asking the right questions.

Hee hee! It's not often that I am asked to explain how I am not, in fact, a stooge of the imperialist plutocracy.

It looks like Comrade Lunzie has already responded to the questions that were posed to me when I stepped into a conversation between the two of you, so I don't really feel compelled to compose an answer that would mostly mirror hers (?--I am going by avatar here).

All I'd add is that I often felt the urge to be sick when listening to the hypocritical fulminations during Sochi from politicians who've been pro-gay for, like, two years.

I've never been to Russia in all my life, so I couldn't say how awesome or lack of awesome being gay there is. I'd imagine it's better than in those various African countries who, influenced by American churches I hear, recently made it illegal upon penalty of death. I'd imagine it's not quite as awesome as living in Somerville, Massachusetts or on Castro Street. I imagine it's roughly comparable to living in the rural United States 30 years ago. Maybe not so long ago in some places.

Either way, in Russia, in America, in Uganda, in Ukraine (I remember there being some scuttlebut about the EU and anti-gay laws and Svoboda? Anyone?) the workers movement must consciously combat anti-gay sentiment, demand full democratic rights for homosexuals, and champion the cause of all of the oppressed. Vive le Galt!

And I believe it can, and must, be done without falling prey to the propganda machinations of western imperialism, and in particular, U.S. imperialism, which, I agree, is the biggest threat to peace and humanity on the planet.


No, Gaberlunzie, you don't try and rationalize your white man's burden via nationalism; you justify it by claiming to be transnational, "materialistic" and part of a marginalized group.

I've a grand idea - head to Moscow and start evangelizing for change. Live your idealism. Stop throwing insults at me and Vlad and wrap yourself in your white robes and get to work. If you - foreigner - change even a single mind I will shake your hand and admit that my non-interventionist policy was incorrect.


I don't think you're a stooge of any stripe, Anklebiter. I do think asking those questions (whose moral, political and economic values? Who is funding this movement, and what are their aims? How will they achieve their aims around the world?) is a must when embarking upon the quest for change.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
the workers movement must consciously combat anti-gay sentiment

Wait,what?National question is second to establishing dictature of the proletariat.Orientation isn't even on the table.

Divisions by orientation is just that,divisions.
Guess who profits from divided working class?


JohnLocke wrote:
I don't think you're a stooge of any stripe, Anklebiter. I do think asking those questions (whose moral, political and economic values? Who is funding this movement, and what are their aims? How will they achieve their aims around the world?) is a must when embarking upon the quest for change.

"Stooge of the plutocracy" is a pet phrase of mine that I've been employing on these boards for a while for (attempted) comedic effect. I didn't really think you thought I was a stooge. Well, of the plutocracy, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
the workers movement must consciously combat anti-gay sentiment

Wait,what?National question is second to establishing dictature of the proletariat.Orientation isn't even on the table.

Divisions by orientation is just that,divisions.
Guess who profits from divided working class?

Exactly. Therefore the worker's movement must consciously combat anti-gay sentiment.

Otherwise it will be used to divide them.

Much like racism was (and is) used to split unions in the US. The answer to that division wasn't to keep Jim Crow. It's the prejudice that divides, not the struggle against it.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I remember there being some scuttlebut about the EU and anti-gay laws and Svoboda? Anyone?

Svoboda has been condemned for a number of reasons by the EU Parliament (rather ironic, now!) and by the World Jewish Congress. Anti-gay, anti-semitic .... the usual ultra-right crap.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
the workers movement must consciously combat anti-gay sentiment

Wait,what?National question is second to establishing dictature of the proletariat.Orientation isn't even on the table.

Divisions by orientation is just that,divisions.
Guess who profits from divided working class?

The vanguard party must be the tribune of all the oppressed, Comrade Koroboff. What Is to Be Done? chapter (makes something up) verse (makes something up).


thejeff wrote:
Therefore the worker's movement must consciously combat anti-gay sentiment.

Nope.Worker must understand that he's a worker first,second and 21st,and gay,ortodox christian or whatever after that.

He do not need to combat anti-gay sentiment,just understand that orientation doesn't matter.There are more important things to combat.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


The vanguard party must be the tribune of all the oppressed, Comrade Koroboff.

And this is why goblins can't have nice things.You are doing it all wrong,and this is used against you.

DM Locke wrote:


Actually, Goblins can't have nice things because they eat them. Or set them on fire.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
doing it all wrong

Like i said:)


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
And this is why goblins can't have nice things.You are doing it all wrong,and this is used against you.

Actually, Goblins can't have nice things because they eat them. Or set them on fire.


Back to business - more on Washington's meddling and it's ripple effects.

Liberty's Edge

Vlad Koroboff wrote:


3)Create well-equipped(who pays?)army and national guard(easier said than done,but idea is solid.Poland will not always be peaceful,they have imperial ambitions too)

4)Create closed nuclear cycle(WTF?How?Why?What relevance?),dig more.

4) I assume generation capacity, to reduce their dependence upon Gazprom

3) Poland? Poland has imperial ambitions? Come on, that isn't even realistic enough to make a good joke.


Usagi Yojimbo wrote:


4) I assume generation capacity, to reduce their dependence upon Gazprom

3) Poland? Poland has imperial ambitions? Come on, that isn't even realistic enough to make a good joke.

4)Obviously,but it's not what she said!

3)You REALLY need that history lesson or you will just take my word for it?(but term "imperial"might be wrong,they never were an empire as-is.)


Speaking of Poland....this is my second avatar that has passed away irl.

:(


Wojciech Jaruzelski wrote:

Speaking of Poland....this is my second avatar that has passed away irl.

:(

Well,it was a long and good life.

Liberty's Edge

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:


4) I assume generation capacity, to reduce their dependence upon Gazprom

3) Poland? Poland has imperial ambitions? Come on, that isn't even realistic enough to make a good joke.

4)Obviously,but it's not what she said!

3)You REALLY need that history lesson or you will just take my word for it?(but term "imperial"might be wrong,they never were an empire as-is.)

4) oh, sorry, I misinterpreted your question, we agree.

3) Man, the False Dimitris were hundreds of years ago, It is officially time to Get Over It. ;)
If you mean the fighting in the... 1920s? That's almost a century ago on its own, the situation is hugely different. The EU isn't going to let a member state start annexing parts of neighboring countries.


Usagi Yojimbo wrote:


If you mean the fighting in the... 1920s? That's almost a century ago on its own, the situation is hugely different. The EU isn't going to let a member state start annexing parts of neighboring countries.

No,i mean Poland From Sea to Sea.Pretty popular nationalist idea there.

Who said there will be EU in 10 years?In 20?
And who cares?You saw how people reacted to Crimea's return to Russia.
In Poland,man who restores Republic to it's rightful borders will be remembered for all eternity.
Here's a scenario for you:Ukraine five years from now,total failed state,Poland moves it's peacekeeping force in the area,stabilizes the situation,and grateful citizens overwhelmlingly vote to join Poland on a "spontaneous"referendum.
Which of course will be recognized by US on the same day because polish lobby.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:


If you mean the fighting in the... 1920s? That's almost a century ago on its own, the situation is hugely different. The EU isn't going to let a member state start annexing parts of neighboring countries.

No,i mean Poland From Sea to Sea.Pretty popular nationalist idea there.

Who said there will be EU in 10 years?In 20?
And who cares?You saw how people reacted to Crimea's return to Russia.
In Poland,man who restores Republic to it's rightful borders will be remembered for all eternity.
Here's a scenario for you:Ukraine five years from now,total failed state,Poland moves it's peacekeeping force in the area,stabilizes the situation,and grateful citizens overwhelmlingly vote to join Poland on a "spontaneous"referendum.
Which of course will be recognized by US on the same day because polish lobby.

The Polish lobby?? Thank you. That's a good one.

Polish expansionism? Yeah, not a thing. You may have found a group of ten weirdos hanging out on a forum somewhere who want to create a Polish Imperium, but that does to make it real. You assume that just because you think annexing your neighbors is a good idea that te rest of the world does as well.


Even though I'm sure some here will vehemently disagree with it, I found this article both amusing and somewhat relevant to this discussion.
Lying about tiger from bear, oh my.


JohnLocke wrote:
What problems has Putin caused? I'd love to hear some. From what I can tell, his main "problems" have been thwarting the will of the western powers, in particular the U.S. He brokered a deal that made it impossible for Obama to pursue his agenda of war and violence in Syria; that was villainous, wasn't it? Especially after all the effort the U.S. went to, framing the Assad regime for a rebel chemical attack.

So you think the rebels launched a sophisticated chemical weapons attack on themselves? Despite pretty much every reliable assessment from a whole range of international actors placing responsibility on the Syrian military? Next you'll be saying Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa pressed the launch button on the rocket launchers.

JohnLocke wrote:
He does business with Iran, which really irritates the U.S., which has tried to frame those dirty Persians with a non-existent nuclear weapons program. I guess the IAEA must be bad guys as well since they keep confirming Iran's reports and refuting those of Israel, the U.S. - you know, the usual band of warmongers. Still, bad Putin!

I think you'll find the Iranian nuclear weapons program has not been non-existent. It currently is in hiatus but that doesn't mean Iran doesn't want to continue it if they get a chance or that they aren't continuing covert research that doesn't involve building certain types of nuclear facilities. Why do you think Iran no longer has an active program? It certainly wasn't out the goodness of their own hearts. It was from a lot of pressure, diplomatic and otherwise, from the US and other countries. And if you look into IAEA reports on Iran you'll find that there is a lot more agreement with the US position than your one liner makes out.

JohnLocke wrote:

And he does business with China! How dare he look to his nations' long term interests and deal with them! Fiend! How are our governments supposed to impoverish Russia if they don't meekly accept our sanctions and back down before our military might! Oooh that Putin! He has irritated me! And you too, it seems, Gallo!

Good on him. Selling gas to China. Very sensible. Lots of revenue for Russia. Shame not much of it is likely to benefit the Russian people - you know the ones whose life expectancy is going backwards at a rate that would embarrass places like Niger.

Who is going to benefit from the gas revenue? More of Putin's billionaire mates who have been pillaging Russia shamelessly since the end of the Soviet Union.
Why would the west want to impoverish Russia? A stable, prosperous, democratic Russia is everyone's best interests - particularly the Russian people. But the people that doesn't benefit are not in Washington, London or Berlin.
Putin doesn't irritate me. He's just a shameless kleptocrat who doesn't care one jot about his people but uses the usual mix of patriotism, machismo, propaganda and the like to make it appear he does.


Usagi Yojimbo wrote:


Polish expansionism? Yeah, not a thing. You may have found a group of ten weirdos hanging out on a forum somewhere who want to create a Polish Imperium, but that does to make it real.

Your feelings about it does not matter.I read about it since before there WAS forums.It's pretty real.

Polish expansionists MAY not be in power now.
Tomorrow?
In these times?There are reasons why Belarus has its military.

And polish lobby doesn't exist,yes

Why can't people start asking questions?

Gallo wrote:
Russian people - you know the ones whose life expectancy is going backwards at a rate

Liar.


Well,i do have some free time,so...

Gallo wrote:


So you think the rebels launched a sophisticated chemical weapons attack on themselves?

Nothing sophisticated about it.And there is no unified rebel structure.

It's killing A LOT of birds with one stone.
Gallo wrote:
Despite pretty much every reliable assessment from a whole range of international actors

That's a good term.

Problem is,Syria has very advanced conventional weapons program,and powerful allies.
It doesn't need to use chemical weapons.One totally conventional fuel-air bomb does the job just as good.
The ONLY faction who benefited from the attacks are rebels.
Gallo wrote:


Who is going to benefit from the gas revenue?

Everyone,because of taxation scheme that was forced by El Presidente in early 21st century.

Gazprom,for instance,is top tax payer around.
Obviously ruling class will take it's toll.
We're living in capitalism,that's expected.
But some key points from Soviet Union were preserved,so i'm OK with it.
Gallo wrote:
life expectancy is going backwards

And again,i must ask,what's the point of lying about easily provable fact?

Also,i'd like to talk about Syria and Syrian regime.
I love them!
First,they are good customer who buys a lot of stuff.
Second,and IMMENSELY more important is that Syria,now,is giant meat grinder for radicals from around the world.They get killed by tens of thousands!
Radicals that otherwise would be somewhere else.
Afghanistan.Dagestan.Tatarstan.Iraq.Crimea.
For that,Syrian people(and that includes the government)have my greatest
respect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallo wrote:
Who is going to benefit from the gas revenue? More of Putin's billionaire mates who have been pillaging Russia shamelessly since the end of the Soviet Union.

Interesting observation, Gallo! Our American friends certainly wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

Gallo wrote:
I think you'll find the Iranian nuclear weapons program has not been non-existent. It currently is in hiatus but that doesn't mean Iran doesn't want to continue it if they get a chance or that they aren't continuing covert research that doesn't involve building certain types of nuclear facilities. Why do you think Iran no longer has an active program? It certainly wasn't out the goodness of their own hearts. It was from a lot of pressure, diplomatic and otherwise, from the US and other countries. And if you look into IAEA reports on Iran you'll find that there is a lot more agreement with the US position than your one liner makes out.

Sure, Gallo! Your opinions certainly outweigh the facts.

Gallo wrote:
So you think the rebels launched a sophisticated chemical weapons attack on themselves? Despite pretty much every reliable assessment from a whole range of international actors placing responsibility on the Syrian military? Next you'll be saying Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa pressed the launch button on the rocket launchers.

Nope, the "freedom fighters" used the chemical weapons on civilians, Gallo. They're not exactly people of high moral standing.


JohnLocke wrote:

Your opinions certainly outweigh the facts

I kinda object.With new infrastructure(nuclear power plants included)nuclear weapons program is easy(it's primary requirement is energy).

The option(!)would be there.
But,nuclear program is costly,and,what's more important,useless.
Better spend money elsewhere.
Buy tactical missiles with fuel-air warheads from Russia,for example!
You can actually use them in a war:)


Iran has made it clear - and the IAEA backs them up - that their desire is for a civilian nuclear program. Under the NPT they're actually permitted that, even if Israel and the U.S. get butthurt about it. And the evidence - all that wasn't provided by Israeli intelligence - shows that there is no military component to the program.

Didn't Iran just sign a huge deal for more nuclear reactors from Russia? I think Russia is providing the uranium, as well ... another olive branch to the western powers from Iran.

Great article on how gold helped Iran thwart American sanctions.


JohnLocke wrote:


Didn't Iran just sign a huge deal for more nuclear reactors from Russia? I think Russia is providing the uranium, as well ... another olive branch to the western powers from Iran.

Yep.Eight of them,if i remember correctly.Russia supplies fuel and then removes nuclear waste(because in the right time,place,and with the right technology,it is not a waste).

And apparently Iran is OK with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

Your opinions certainly outweigh the facts

I kinda object.With new infrastructure(nuclear power plants included)nuclear weapons program is easy(it's primary requirement is energy).

The option(!)would be there.
But,nuclear program is costly,and,what's more important,useless.
Better spend money elsewhere.
Buy tactical missiles with fuel-air warheads from Russia,for example!
You can actually use them in a war:)

Nuclear weapons are not at all useless, even if you don't actually use them.

The threat of them is a massive deterrent.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:

Well,i do have some free time,so...

Gallo wrote:


So you think the rebels launched a sophisticated chemical weapons attack on themselves?

Nothing sophisticated about it.And there is no unified rebel structure.

It's killing A LOT of birds with one stone.
Gallo wrote:
Despite pretty much every reliable assessment from a whole range of international actors

That's a good term.

Problem is,Syria has very advanced conventional weapons program,and powerful allies.
It doesn't need to use chemical weapons.One totally conventional fuel-air bomb does the job just as good.
The ONLY faction who benefited from the attacks are rebels.

Correctly using chemical weapons is not easy. You need a delivery system, deployment system, targeting information and not least the chemical weapon itself. Given the sensitivity of Syria's possession of chemical weapons one would assume that Assad, not being a fool, would make sure they were protected by very reliable and trusted troops. Yet somehow one group of rebels not only got hold of the chemical weapons and the means of using them and but also had the technical capability to use them? Really?

I never said anything about a unified rebel structure. You really are good at trying to criticise people by suggesting people have made claims they haven't.

Fuel-air explosives - sure the Syrians could use them but in this case they didn't. And they don't necessarily do the job just as well.


thejeff wrote:


The threat of them is a massive deterrent.

No it isn't.

You need nuclear triad for that,which costs FAR more than just developing a simple fission device.
Gallo wrote:


Fuel-air explosives - sure the Syrians could use them but in this case they didn't.

Yep.Mostly because rebels didn't have bombers.


JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Who is going to benefit from the gas revenue? More of Putin's billionaire mates who have been pillaging Russia shamelessly since the end of the Soviet Union.
Interesting observation, Gallo! Our American friends certainly wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

I'm not arguing anything about the greed of Western capitalists. Happy to discuss it if you like but we're talking about Putin.

Gallo wrote:

I think you'll find the Iranian nuclear weapons program has not been non-existent. It currently is in hiatus but that doesn't mean Iran doesn't want to continue it if they get a chance or that they aren't continuing covert research that doesn't involve building certain types of nuclear facilities. Why do you think Iran no longer has an active program? It certainly wasn't out the goodness of their own hearts. It was from a lot of pressure, diplomatic and otherwise, from the US and other countries. And if you look into IAEA reports on Iran you'll find that there is a lot more agreement with the US position than your one liner makes out.

Sure, Gallo! Your opinions certainly outweigh the facts.

So your one reference trumps mine? Fill your boots mate, but I've read enough to know Iran did have a nuclear program and that if the opportunity arises in the future to actively pursue it again there are elements in the Iranian government who happily do so.

JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
So you think the rebels launched a sophisticated chemical weapons attack on themselves? Despite pretty much every reliable assessment from a whole range of international actors placing responsibility on the Syrian military? Next you'll be saying Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa pressed the launch button on the rocket launchers.
JohnLocke wrote:
Nope, the "freedom fighters" used the chemical weapons on civilians, Gallo. They're not exactly people of high moral standing.

Compared to the Syrian government? The rebels aren't homogenous and some certainly aren't nice - AQ and co. But there are also those who have the aspirations to not live under the Syrian regime. Would you deny them the right to that? Or should they just suck it up?

PS Why do you keep using my forum name? Do you think it somehow makes your arguments more persuasive?


Gallo wrote:
But there are also those who have the aspirations to not live under the Syrian regime. Would you deny them the right to that?

Two hundred thousand dead,three million refugees,five plus million displaced,in a country of twenty million

I would deny them the right to exist.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:


The threat of them is a massive deterrent.

No it isn't.

You need nuclear triad for that,which costs FAR more than just developing a simple fission device.

Please enlighten us on your theories on the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why it is only a potential deterrent if a country has multiple delivery methods. Has Israel got a hidden fleet of SSBN? How about Pakistan? So North Korea is wasting its time developing nuclear weapons if it doesn't have a full complement of ICBM, strategic bombers and SSBNs?

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:


Fuel-air explosives - sure the Syrians could use them but in this case they didn't.

Yep.Mostly because rebels didn't have bombers.

So because they don't have bombers - which no one is disputing or has even raised for that matter - the chemical attack had to be done by the rebels rather than the one actor who actually has both the means and motive to use them?

1,151 to 1,200 of 2,002 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Ukraine thingy All Messageboards