The Ukraine thingy


Off-Topic Discussions

1,901 to 1,950 of 2,002 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Splitting it over two prototypes makes it look ridiculous.

Because it is!

I can live with cancelled Yak-41,because at least someone make good use of
it in the end,but RAH-66 was just...wasted!
As was F-22,for that matter.

It sucks that so much money was wasted on a failed program, but how much the prototypes cost isn't a useful measure of that. If they'd made a dozen, which would have cost a bit more but averaged out to much less would it be any less ridiculous.

And at some point you're throwing good money after bad. If it's not going to work or you don't need it, cut your losses.


thejeff wrote:


And at some point you're throwing good money after bad. If it's not going to work or you don't need it, cut your losses.

Too much cutting!First Comanche,then F-22,now railguns for zumwalt...and zumwalt also,what's next?Steam catapults on Ford-class carriers?!

But i do love overpriced testbeds.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And at some point you're throwing good money after bad. If it's not going to work or you don't need it, cut your losses.

Too much cutting!First Comanche,then F-22,now railguns for zumwalt...and zumwalt also,what's next?Steam catapults on Ford-class carriers?!

But i do love overpriced testbeds.

If the electromag launch system doesn't work out, I'm sure steam catapults would be installed. They are a proven technology, after all...


Numerous,like,really numerous sources report that rebel assault on Mariupol has begun.Could be really massive information attack,but looks true.


Imperial arrogance at it's finest. I'm sure they won't "accidentally" hit any Syrian government positions...

"I don't think it's that complicated because obviously the Iraqi government is a legitimate government ... whereas President Assad has committed war crimes on his own people and is therefore illegitimate." - David Cameron.

Holy s$#& these people are disconnected from reality. Any excuse to invade, right? Lies about gas attacks didn't work, but there's always another way to arrange mass murder.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:

Numerous,like,really numerous sources report that rebel assault on Mariupol has begun.Could be really massive information attack,but looks true.

Do you have any english language sources you can share? Translating doesn't always yield to best results....


JohnLocke wrote:


Do you have any english language sources you can share? Translating doesn't always yield to best results....

No i have not,checked just now.I'm sure in a few hours something will come

up.
Night assault...scaary.
Also it probably means that at least some kind of cease-fire is nearing,which is why rebels are acting rash.
Because my guess is that each side keeps land that it controls at the time of declaration of ceasefire.


Here's a fresh report from the totally legit, not-insane, totally unbiased website freerepublic:

Link here

See? Your Russian invasion has failed and ALL your equipment was destroyed, Vlad! Now please get the f&@+ out of Ukraine so they can sing "stars and stripes forever" and eat french fries and surf freerepublic and watch "honey boo boo" like good civilized people do.

Commie invader :-)


JohnLocke wrote:


See? Your Russian invasion has failed and ALL your equipment was destroyed, Vlad!

WHAT!This must not stand.Launch every Zig!For Great Justice!

But seriously,rebels have about 5k personnel and 300 armor in the region.
It would take a nuclear strike to destroy ALL equipment.
Probably more than one.


Video purporting to show a rocket attack upon Ukrainian positions by rebel forces.

The people taking the video seem pretty pleased. Could it be that the people in eastern Ukraine don't want the Kiev forces there?


JohnLocke wrote:
Video purporting to show a rocket attack upon Ukrainian positions by rebel forces.

Yep,Mariupol,a few hours ago.


They seem to really like the Russian invasion force. Interesting.


JohnLocke wrote:
They seem to really like the Russian invasion force. Interesting.

Nope,they seem to really welcome rockets that was launched by....somebody

against loyalist checkpoint.
And THAT is interesting.


JohnLocke wrote:
Is Germany free? Is Japan? South Korea? All are occupied nations, and all act as antagonists (proxies) for American aggression.

Oh those poor oppressed masses in Germany, Japan and South Korea suffering under the oppressive jackboot of military occupation.

I'll go get some more popcorn and sit back and watch the ongoing politico love-fest that you and Vlad have got going on.

Ps. Agree completely on the vulture funds.


Gallo wrote:
Oh those poor oppressed masses in Japan and South Korea

I don't know much about Germany,but these guys...they scare me.


Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Is Germany free? Is Japan? South Korea? All are occupied nations, and all act as antagonists (proxies) for American aggression.

Oh those poor oppressed masses in Germany, Japan and South Korea suffering under the oppressive jackboot of military occupation.

I'll go get some more popcorn and sit back and watch the ongoing politico love-fest that you and Vlad have got going on.

Ps. Agree completely on the vulture funds.

There's no love-fest! I'm here watching clear evidence of Russian attacks on the peace-loving Ukrainian forces, as the peasants wail in the background, lamenting the fate of their beloved protectors :-(

I'm assuming education is really important to these people - they start shouting "Grad! Grad! at one point.

As for Vlad? He's probably eating borscht and drinking vodka or whatever those people do whilst planning the next Russian invasion of an innocent nation.


I'm actually prefer petting my left hand dog.
But seriously,yes,rebels have like 4:1 advantage,but night assault?Really?
I don't like that idea.


I must apologize to my honoured debating opponents :-( I claimed Russia had not invaded Ukraine but I was wrong. Someone has finally posted photographic evidence here.

Apologies, etc. to all affected parties. I should never have doubted the solemn word of worthies such as Obama, Merkel, Kerry, and of course good ol' Porkyshenko himself.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:

I'm actually prefer petting my left hand dog.

But seriously,yes,rebels have like 4:1 advantage,but night assault?Really?
I don't like that idea.

They're clearly in a rush to get the job done. I'm guessing you're spot-on about an impending cease-fire and it's conditions re: held territory at the time it takes effect.


JohnLocke wrote:
Porkyshenko

Is that typo intentional?

That's quite funny,because around here,some are calling him Porosenko.
And porosenok is,of course,little pig.
Speaking of pigs,did these guys even know how much pigs it takes to buy even one loadout of guided bombs?
JohnLocke wrote:

held territory at the time it takes effect.

But good lord the casualties!It's not like the war will be over after ceasefire,it will continue in the winter.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Porkyshenko
Is that typo intentional?

Yes :-)

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
But good lord the casualties!It's not like the war will be over after ceasefire,it will continue in the winter.

Hey, Porky and Putin didn't make the rules, comrade. They just thought them up and wrote them down.

Precision guided munitions at work. Escalation? Nah, NATO just wants to make sure that only ethnic Russians are killed in droves.


I,too,do not have confirmation, but it looks like that ceasefire will start in two hours.

Still no news about Mariupol,except that little bit that by terms of ceasefire loyalists leave entire Donetsk and Lugansk states,which Mariupol is part of.


So,ceasefire.Like in Wargame:European Escalation! (yes,i would like that check now)
Oh,and next humanitarian convoy,without as much attention from MSM and lotsa strange folk,will depart tomorrow.
Also,and this is strange,prices of canned meat are lowered by substantial amount in the last few days.
Coincidence?
Who cares?!


A very rational analysis of the causes of the Ukraine crisis.

Many in the government and media have claimed that the Ukraine situation was caused by Putin's desire to reclaim the lost territory of the USSR. This astounds me - the crisis was caused, directly, by NATO expansionism, not Russian aggression. I'd love to hear a counterpoint to this from someone who believes otherwise.


A few photos of rebel custom-tuned T-64
Yes,really.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:

A few photos of rebel custom-tuned T-64

Yes,really.

What does it say on the barrel of the main gun?


NATO doesn't want peace in Ukraine.

"A NATO military officer said Moscow had "several thousand" combat troops and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles operating in Ukraine. The Kremlin denies it has any forces fighting alongside the rebels."

Will these people ever provide evidence for their wild claims? When and where did these thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks cross in Ukraine? And no air support?


JohnLocke wrote:
Vlad Koroboff wrote:

A few photos of rebel custom-tuned T-64

Yes,really.

What does it say on the barrel of the main gun?

Tank belongs to the unit called Imp's Batallion,for the callsign of it's commander,Igor Bezler aka Bes(which translates to Imp).

And on the barrel it says "Greetings from the Imp".


thejeff wrote:
Vlad Koroboff wrote:

I'm actually trying to understand motivation of our resident frenchie.

You have to be blind,deaf,and possibly lobotomized not to understand that true target of this whole show is not Ukraine,and not even Russia.
It's EU.And French,as one of leaders will be hit pretty hard in one way or another.
Mad dollarz for breaking the contract AFTER supplying russian with needed technology,anyone?.
But then,France is rich,it can take it.
About 10 members of EU can't.
And chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Apparently, I'm blind deaf and lobotomized, because I don't even begin to understand what you mean.

The EU is the target? Whose target?

The US created and is using this crisis to hurt the EU by getting them to damage their economies with sanctions on Russia? Is that your theory here? Or something else entirely?

This article will help you comprehend Vlad's point a little better. The salient points:

"Internationally, neocons (and their influential and well-heeled sponsors) have not been happy with the gradual rapprochement taking place between Europe and Russia these past few years, as seen by the increasing number of oil and gas pipelines “sewing” the two land masses together, by the increasing number of Euro-Russian trade and financial agreements stipulated, by the increasing number of joint research projects for developing new technologies, and so on. Because all this can only lead to genuine multipolarity in the world, i.e., a world in which a future Euro-Russian block will have the same weight and punch as China or as… the United States of America. Goodbye U.S. primacy.

But by engineering the coup in Ukraine to undermine Russia on its western border, the neocons (and their sponsors) managed to provoke Putin’s counterattack and thus a fight. This permitted them, in turn, to denounce Russian “aggression” and to call for measures to castigate Russia – measures having the end effect of crippling Euro-Russian rapprochement, the neocons’ real goal. The beauty of this strategy is that it got Europeans to punish themselves , as well as the Russians, thus permitting the U.S. to rake in a profit off the sanctions. Specifically, EU countries were induced to:

• freeze part of their joint economic and technological exchanges with Russia, thus making it necessary to compensate by increasing their trans-Atlantic exchanges with the U.S. under the conditions spelled out in the forthcoming TTIP agreement. (The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, still top secret, is a free trade agreement that will give U.S.-based multinational corporations a stranglehold on European industries; it is due to be approved this year);

• throw a wrench in their joint oil/gas pipeline projects with Russia (or multiple wrenches as in the case of the South Stream project), thus making it necessary to compensate their energy losses by importing liquified gas from the U.S. – which, it is claimed, is now produced sufficiently in excess, thanks to fracking, to pick up the EU slack. In other words, besides economic and military dependence, Europe will now be dependent on the U.S. for much of its energy and thus, more than ever, a vassal.

All this is a textbook lesson in how to create empire without firing a shot.

The neocon international strategy therefore rejects multipolarity and redivides the world into two blocks, and the dividing line goes right along the eastern border of Ukraine. One block consists of Russia, Iran and China, the backbone of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) which seems destined to become the new “Axis of Evil”. The other block, called “the West”, consists of all the other countries in the world, aligned behind the United States of America which shields them from Evil, that is, from the SCO."


That makes a little more sense than the "true target of this whole show is not Ukraine,and not even Russia. It's EU.And French"

But I'm not sure it's saying the same thing.

Mind you, I don't buy into it completely, but at least I understand it.


Neocons even sent infiltrators to Crimea to make it seems as if the area wanted to defect to Russia, just so they could claim that there was proof that Russia was trying to do a land grab. Tricky ass neocons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Neocons even sent infiltrators to Crimea to make it seems as if the area wanted to defect to Russia, just so they could claim that there was proof that Russia was trying to do a land grab. Tricky ass neocons.

That explains it! The mysterious "green men" were actually special neocon troops. Their cover was so good, they actually fooled Putin into admitting they were Russian soldiers.


My honourable American comrades are looking for foreign infiltrators in the wrong places :-)

So, how is the ceasefire Putin bartered sitting with my American friends? Does it sting as much as his efforts to stymie your bombing campaign in Syria last year? Or Iran prior to that?


JohnLocke wrote:

My honourable American comrades are looking for foreign infiltrators in the wrong places :-)

So, how is the ceasefire Putin bartered sitting with my American friends? Does it sting as much as his efforts to stymie your bombing campaign in Syria last year? Or Iran prior to that?

Personally, I was quite happy with the Syrian deal. I suspect Obama was too, despite all the press about him being weak. He got his apparent goals out of the deal. Probably a good thing too. IS capturing chemical weapons would have been bad.

Nobody sane wants a bombing campaign in Iran either. Including Obama. Willing to keep the threat on the table to keep pressure on, but the idea that he's been maneuvering to start a war and only Putin has been able to stop him is just nonsense.

As for this one, we'll see how it holds and how it works out. Ceasefires are often fragile.


thejeff wrote:
but at least I understand it.

Yes,it says exactly the same.You see,Locke is officer and gentleman,so he explains stuff to people.

I am not.

About Crimea land grab,it was either this or bloodbath.
I'd like to EMPHASIS AGAIN,DAMMIT!!!!!one that only thing Dark One actually admitted is that on the referendum day russian forces were deployed.
Not earlier in the march,not during Operation Blockship,on one single day.More than a week after declaration of independence,also.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

My honourable American comrades are looking for foreign infiltrators in the wrong places :-)

So, how is the ceasefire Putin bartered sitting with my American friends? Does it sting as much as his efforts to stymie your bombing campaign in Syria last year? Or Iran prior to that?

Personally, I was quite happy with the Syrian deal. I suspect Obama was too, despite all the press about him being weak. He got his apparent goals out of the deal. Probably a good thing too. IS capturing chemical weapons would have been bad.

Nobody sane wants a bombing campaign in Iran either. Including Obama. Willing to keep the threat on the table to keep pressure on, but the idea that he's been maneuvering to start a war and only Putin has been able to stop him is just nonsense.

As for this one, we'll see how it holds and how it works out. Ceasefires are often fragile.

The US desires Assad out of power in Syria, full stop. To that end they've been training and arming opposition forces, including ISIL. That Assad remained in power due to Russian interference was indeed a slap in the face to American interests, who sought to add their airstrikes to the weight of the forces facing the Syrian government. To say otherwise is not only nonsense, but dishonest. Look how eager they are now to attack ISIL in Syria, but not to coordinate with Syria itself. What are the chances some of their airstrikes will go "awry", and strike Syrian positions? As for Iran - they've far exceeded what is required of them by NPT regulations, and still the US threatens and demands. And the sanctions placed against Iran are indeed economic warfare, as are the sanctions against Russia.

Obama himself may not want to bomb and invade, but his advisers, his pals in Israel, in Saudi Arabia, all want him to attack. You speak of sanity, but all Washington can seem to do is create conflict and violence, everywhere in the world. What sort of foreign policy is that? Hint: answer is in my post earlier in this thread. The flailing of a dying empire, desperate to retain it's power and influence.

I do get the sense that both sides in Ukraine are going to use this break to reorganize and re-arm (from their respective backers) rather than as a first step towards lasting peace :-(


JohnLocke wrote:
I do get the sense that both sides in Ukraine are going to use this break to reorganize and re-arm (from their respective backers) rather than as a first step towards lasting peace :-(

The only way civil war can end is the complete victory of one side,victory being defined as accomplishing goals.

Do,by terms of this cease-fire,republics get their independence or at least roadmap to it?
I somehow doubt it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
but at least I understand it.

Yes,it says exactly the same.You see,Locke is officer and gentleman,so he explains stuff to people.

I am not.

About Crimea land grab,it was either this or bloodbath.
I'd like to EMPHASIS AGAIN,DAMMIT!!!!!one that only thing Dark One actually admitted is that on the referendum day russian forces were deployed.
Not earlier in the march,not during Operation Blockship,on one single day.More than a week after declaration of independence,also.

Crimea did hold a referendum on rejoining Russia; whilst I understand it may not have been legitimate in the American governments eyes, I have no doubt it did reflect the will of the Crimean people. These criticisms ring hollow, coming from the US government; as witnessed in Egypt, the US is quite willing to turn a blind eye when democracy doesn't serve its purposes.

I'm sure the irony of the US funding "pro-democracy" initiatives (to the tune of $5 billion) in Ukraine is not lost on my fellows here.


JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

My honourable American comrades are looking for foreign infiltrators in the wrong places :-)

So, how is the ceasefire Putin bartered sitting with my American friends? Does it sting as much as his efforts to stymie your bombing campaign in Syria last year? Or Iran prior to that?

Personally, I was quite happy with the Syrian deal. I suspect Obama was too, despite all the press about him being weak. He got his apparent goals out of the deal. Probably a good thing too. IS capturing chemical weapons would have been bad.

Nobody sane wants a bombing campaign in Iran either. Including Obama. Willing to keep the threat on the table to keep pressure on, but the idea that he's been maneuvering to start a war and only Putin has been able to stop him is just nonsense.

As for this one, we'll see how it holds and how it works out. Ceasefires are often fragile.

The US desires Assad out of power in Syria, full stop. To that end they've been training and arming opposition forces, including ISIL. That Assad remained in power due to Russian interference was indeed a slap in the face to American interests, who sought to add their airstrikes to the weight of the forces facing the Syrian government. To say otherwise is not only nonsense, but dishonest. Look how eager they are now to attack ISIL in Syria, but not to coordinate with Syria itself. What are the chances some of their airstrikes will go "awry", and strike Syrian positions? As for Iran - they've far exceeded what is required of them by NPT regulations, and still the US threatens and demands. And the sanctions placed against Iran are indeed economic warfare, as are the sanctions against Russia.

Obama himself may not...

I love the way you demand proof of every Western allegation about anything, and especially anything negative about Russia or Putin, but readily accept any bad thing about the US.

Are there people in Washington who want Assad gone? Certainly. There's a lot in Syria who want him gone too. There are also a lot in Washington who might be happier with him gone, but aren't interested in actually committing to the fight. And a lot more who don't care at all, but are doing their best to make their political opponents look bad. "Eager to go after ISIL in Syria"? They've ignored IS for months, probably hoping it would just go away, and only started taking action when things really boiled over.

According to some Obama (or the US) is always desperately trying to start more wars and invade more countries and keeps being stopped at the last moment (generally by Putin's brilliance). He's apparently simultaneously both a brilliant mastermind manipulator and incredibly inept, despite often achieving his actual stated goals, just not his secret war-mongering ones. It's like the Republicans who keep switching between accusing him of being a tyrannical dictator and weak apologist.

It's really kind of amusing.


thejeff wrote:
I love the way you demand proof of every Western allegation about anything

That's because they never provide it,but are very trigger-happy to assign the blame,and have been for decades.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
but at least I understand it.

Yes,it says exactly the same.You see,Locke is officer and gentleman,so he explains stuff to people.

I am not.

About Crimea land grab,it was either this or bloodbath.
I'd like to EMPHASIS AGAIN,DAMMIT!!!!!one that only thing Dark One actually admitted is that on the referendum day russian forces were deployed.
Not earlier in the march,not during Operation Blockship,on one single day.More than a week after declaration of independence,also.

Yes, but those russians he admitted to were the same as the "green men" seen throughout the preceding weeks. Or maybe pretending to be them.

But of course, that's not absolute hard proof, so we can completely ignore it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I love the way you demand proof of every Western allegation about anything

That's because they never provide it,but are very trigger-happy to assign the blame,and have been for decades.

That's fine, but don't swallow everything the other sides say either.

Everyone in politics lies. Especially when it comes to war. Disinformation rules.


thejeff wrote:
But of course, that's not absolute hard proof, so we can completely ignore it.

Either we believe the story that military were deployed or a single day,or we are not,in which case whole show was organized by a few local leaders,and Dark One just took credit for it,because we have no proof that russian military were deployed at all.

We can't pick and choose here.

Speaking of,if i was asked by local government to aid in such a circumstance,i would DEFINITELY masqueraded as local SDF.Sudden appearance of foreign military almost guarantees incidents.
And we don't want them,right?

thejeff wrote:

That's fine, but don't swallow everything the other sides say either.

Everyone in politics lies. Especially when it comes to war. Disinformation rules.

Fixed.

In other news:people die if they are killed.


thejeff wrote:

I love the way you demand proof of every Western allegation about anything, and especially anything negative about Russia or Putin, but readily accept any bad thing about the US.

Are there people in Washington who want Assad gone? Certainly. There's a lot in Syria who want him gone too. There are also a lot in Washington who might be happier with him gone, but aren't interested in actually committing to the fight. And a lot more who don't care at all, but are doing their best to make their political opponents look bad. "Eager to go after ISIL in Syria"? They've ignored IS for months, probably hoping it would just go away, and only started taking action when things really boiled over.

According to some Obama (or the US) is always desperately trying to start more wars and invade more countries and keeps being stopped at the last moment (generally by Putin's brilliance). He's apparently simultaneously both a brilliant mastermind manipulator and incredibly inept, despite often achieving his actual stated goals, just not his secret war-mongering ones. It's like the Republicans who keep switching between accusing him of being a tyrannical dictator and weak apologist.

It's really kind of amusing.

Yes, some people in Washington wanted a piece of Assad. Also, Obama's "benign" plans for Syria. You're really arguing that the US was just standing idly by? Also, judging by the election in Syria, there were lots of people who wanted Assad to stay in power. Weren't their voices worth anything? Not to good ol' John Kerry: "In Beirut, US secretary of state John Kerry sharply criticized the Syrian election, calling it "a great big zero." He said it can't be considered fair "because you can't have an election where millions of your people don't even have an ability to vote."

The irony, once again, is delicious.

Are we still amused?


JohnLocke wrote:
Are we still amused?

"because you can't have an election where millions of your people don't even have an ability to vote."

I am amused!:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But of course, that's not absolute hard proof, so we can completely ignore it.

Either we believe the story that military were deployed or a single day,or we are not,in which case whole show was organized by a few local leaders,and Dark One just took credit for it,because we have no proof that russian military were deployed at all.

We can't pick and choose here.

Speaking of,if i was asked by local government to aid in such a circumstance,i would DEFINITELY masqueraded as local SDF.Sudden appearance of foreign military almost guarantees incidents.
And we don't want them,right?

Why can't we pick and choose here? Putin can lie, or shade the truth. Maybe the end was just a little too obvious so he had to fess up to the green men being Russian troops,but only that day. But the green men earlier on, they were someone else entirely. Nah, they were Russian all along. I can't prove it. But you can't prove they weren't either. So we each get to weigh the evidence for ourselves.

But your argument: Since we can't prove they were there we have to accept they weren't. But if they had been there they would have masqueraded as local SDF, not that they were of course.
It's great fun. It's like watching a little kid, or OJ Simpson, sure he's gotten away with something, boasting about how he did it, but still saying "You can't prove it!"


JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I love the way you demand proof of every Western allegation about anything, and especially anything negative about Russia or Putin, but readily accept any bad thing about the US.

Are there people in Washington who want Assad gone? Certainly. There's a lot in Syria who want him gone too. There are also a lot in Washington who might be happier with him gone, but aren't interested in actually committing to the fight. And a lot more who don't care at all, but are doing their best to make their political opponents look bad. "Eager to go after ISIL in Syria"? They've ignored IS for months, probably hoping it would just go away, and only started taking action when things really boiled over.

According to some Obama (or the US) is always desperately trying to start more wars and invade more countries and keeps being stopped at the last moment (generally by Putin's brilliance). He's apparently simultaneously both a brilliant mastermind manipulator and incredibly inept, despite often achieving his actual stated goals, just not his secret war-mongering ones. It's like the Republicans who keep switching between accusing him of being a tyrannical dictator and weak apologist.

It's really kind of amusing.

Yes, some people in Washington wanted a piece of Assad. Also, Obama's "benign" plans for Syria. You're really arguing that the US was just standing idly by? Also, judging by the election in Syria, there were lots of people who wanted Assad to stay in power. Weren't their voices worth anything? Not to good ol' John Kerry: "In Beirut, US secretary of state John Kerry sharply criticized the Syrian election, calling it "a great big zero." He said it can't be considered fair "because you can't have an election where millions of your people don't even have an ability to vote."

The irony, once again, is delicious.

Are we still amused?

Yes. Some people did, but somehow despite that, Congress and, as you admitted before, Obama, weren't very eager for it. Isn't it possible that the "red line" was a bluff that Assad called and Obama was trying reluctantly to make good on the threat, when Putin gave him the out he wanted - which accomplished a major goal, getting the chemical weapons out of Syria. This really doesn't paint a picture of the US or even the Washington establishment eager for war.

As for elections, Kerry and Obama are Democrats, remember? The ones those Republican voter id laws are aimed at hurting? Not the ones trying to disenfranchise people, but the other ones?


I said Obama "may not" want to bomb and invade - looks like he's going to attack Syria now anyway, so his reserve is dubious, to say the least. Also going back into Iraq. And threatening more forces to "face down" Russia. Guess his corporate masters have to get paid, right?

As for the supposed democrat/republican divide - there are warmongering democrats (Kerry, Clinton, etc) and non-warmongering republicans (Rand Paul, for example). I don't buy into your mass media democrat=good guy, republican=bad guy outlook. Bill Clinton, a solid Democrat, presided over a number of illegal attacks on foreign nations. And that Kerry would criticize other nations for their elections, while at home you've got voter suppression, Diebold machines, and gerrymandering, is what made me laugh. Beacon of democracy indeed!


JohnLocke wrote:

I said Obama "may not" want to bomb and invade - looks like he's going to attack Syria now anyway, so his reserve is dubious, to say the least. Also going back into Iraq. And threatening more forces to "face down" Russia. Guess his corporate masters have to get paid, right?

As for the supposed democrat/republican divide - there are warmongering democrats (Kerry, Clinton, etc) and non-warmongering republicans (Rand Paul, for example). I don't buy into your mass media democrat=good guy, republican=bad guy outlook. Bill Clinton, a solid Democrat, presided over a number of illegal attacks on foreign nations. And that Kerry would criticize other nations for their elections, while at home you've got voter suppression, Diebold machines, and gerrymandering, is what made me laugh. Beacon of democracy indeed!

The Republican/Democrat thing was specifically about the elections. You're laughing at a Democrat for things the Republicans are doing to them.

More generally "Democrats = Good guys" is too strong. All the major players are far more hawkish than I'd like. (Hillary's likely to be much more so than Obama, though.) But the Republicans are much worse lately. Romney had essentially no foreign policy, but we'd definitely have been in more trouble with John "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain. Rand Paul may be outlier, but is in many ways a loose cannon. Most of his policy seems to be based on Obama/Democrats are bad, rather than anything coherent. It might be interesting to see how he behaves under a Republican administration.

Also the idea that our mass media is "democrat=good guy, republican=bad guy" is ridiculous.

Anyways, this thread is really supposed to be about Ukraine, not US politics, so I'm going to drop this digression now.


I was laughing at the US for allowing such things to happen at all, while dictating to others that their elections are valid or not. There's evidently a large part of the American population that appreciates the thought of not allowing minorities to enjoy their voting rights.

But you're right about Hillary. As a likely candidate for next president, I worry for the world if she comes into office.

I suppose if you watch fox news, Republicans are well-portrayed.

But yes - back to Ukraine. Or Ukraine-related things. NATO - it's time has long passed.

1,901 to 1,950 of 2,002 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Ukraine thingy All Messageboards