|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 22 2017 01:27 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US?
Who is going to pay for their land and personal property? What about all the businesses in the US that dealt with FL or CA that now have to deal with this new nation? Who is going to pay for their assets, because they live in NY or some other state? What about all those loans and other contracts that people signed for like 30 years(mortgages) that are no null and void? Is someone going to cover that cost? Is everyone supposed to write off the decades of investment into that state because one group of people decided to hold a vote to leave?
On March 22 2017 01:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. Some British colonies gained sovereignty without shooting British people. Just saying.
We set of the base line for the cost vs benefit equation.
|
On March 22 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:27 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US? Who is going to pay for their land and personal property? What about all the businesses in the US that dealt with FL or CA that now have to deal with this new nation? Who is going to pay for their assets, because they live in NY or some other state? What about all those loans and other contracts that people signed for like 30 years(mortgages) that are no null and void? Is someone going to cover that cost? Is everyone supposed to write off the decades of investment into that state because one group of people decided to hold a vote to leave?
Those are ridiculous questions to pose in this forum. I am not a legal expert. This would have to be negotiated. It would be an incredibly complex matter, obviously. Just as the Brexit negotiations are going to be long and complicated, but that's still happening (and some EU workers are in fact leaving the country because of that, one might argue they are essentially being displaced, perhaps?).
Either way, I think the will of Crimean people should have been taken into account, and yet the west seems to be ignoring that in their approach to the annexation. There's plenty of legitimate criticism as well, of course, don't get me wrong.
|
On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland.
I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote.
|
On March 22 2017 01:36 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:27 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US? Who is going to pay for their land and personal property? What about all the businesses in the US that dealt with FL or CA that now have to deal with this new nation? Who is going to pay for their assets, because they live in NY or some other state? What about all those loans and other contracts that people signed for like 30 years(mortgages) that are no null and void? Is someone going to cover that cost? Is everyone supposed to write off the decades of investment into that state because one group of people decided to hold a vote to leave? Those are ridiculous questions to pose in this forum. I am not a legal expert. This would have to be negotiated. It would be an incredibly complex matter, obviously. Just as the Brexit negotiations are going to be long and complicated, but that's still happening. Either way, I think the will of Crimean people should have been taken into account, and yet the west seems to be ignoring that in their approach to the annexation.
It can't be negotiated. Russia isn't going to pay the Ukraine for the land they are taking. They could never afford it. Do you know how much that would be valued at? The Ukraine will never be made whole in any way. They are just taking the land and use the "willing of the people" as the reason. And that "will of the people" is something they have been cultivating for well over a decade through propaganda and political influence.
Folks in this long era of peace and general stability have not seen this before, but this is the exact shit that leads to conflicts. We don't fuck with each other's elections. We try to make deals with our neighbors to annex the land they live on. None of this stuff is new. It is only a matter of time before Putin looks for the next low hanging fruit that he feels should come home.
PS: The same goes for US states. They can't afford the cost of becoming independent and paying off all the debts. That is why its not viable or an option. When people try to do this stuff, they want to do it for free.
|
United States42784 Posts
On March 22 2017 01:23 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:15 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:04 opisska wrote:
While I am in favor of taking into NATO every country that Russia cares about, even I can appreciate that it's much less straightforward than situation leading to the Munich agreement and comparing those is almost an insult to pre-war Czechoslovakia. In case of Montenegro, you don't really know how loyal they will be and how they end up acting if an actual conflict arises, while Czechs in 1938 were a unified nation essentially waiting with arms in their hands to go fight the imminent threat. They were stabbed in the front. The 1930s really were a tragedy.  France kept sending letters to Britain saying "okay, we're doing this, we're going to declare war" and Britain kept sending letters back saying "I don't know about that" with France replying "okay but previously you said that if either one of us unilaterally declared war on Germany for this kind of shit the other would automatically back them so we're gonna draw the line here and you're with us anyway so we're good, right?" and Britain replying "oh yeah, that's definitely a thing we said" and Hitler's generals waiting to depose him for causing a general war and Mussolini ready to join Britain and France. It's like watching a disaster movie in slow motion where the disaster keeps getting worse and worse and all the heroes die. It's actually hard to judge even from all those years of distance. Sure, if the Hitler-deposing plot worked, there would be nothing to talk about. But in the probably more realistic scenario, where the powers just say no and Hitler says screw you and invades Czechoslovakia right away, the results would have been brutal. Even if Czechoslovakia was allowed defend itself, it would surely have fallen. We had a great setup against then-regular ground-based attacks but the armored fighting vehicles that the Germans had would have breached it quite swiftly. The terrain and further inland defensive lines could have been be still helpful to incur some serious losses ... but then you have to take into account the Luftwaffe to which we had no real answer at all. The problem is that Germany was next door, so even if France and UK were committed to immediate retaliation, we would have been done by their arrival.
It's a different discussion but there is a lot to be said for the argument that Germany wasn't ready for war with Britain and France until 1940, and only then after the absorption of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Germany waged a highly successful war in France in 1940 but it does not necessarily follow that they would have been successful in 1938. The large numbers of trained reservists that were called up for that war did not yet exist, for example, because there is a considerable delay between reintroducing conscription and having the population pass through the system. The invasion of Austria revealed serious defects in the German war machine, from mechanical failures throughout the armoured divisions to logistical problems. Meanwhile the French were still in a position to overrun the insufficiently fortified Rhine frontier in a matter of days with 40 divisions facing 5 German divisions.
In 1938 Germany had
31 divisions on paper but many of these were two thirds strength or double counted because they had a third taken away to form a veteran nucleus of a reserve division
Of the 31, 3 were armoured, 4 were motorised.
The German armoured corps featured no tanks above 10 tons and none armed with anything bigger than a machine gun (the Mark IIIs (18 tons, 37mm gun) were in production but not yet a meaningful factor).
Meanwhile the Czechs had a larger army, 34 divisions, and 469 38 ton tanks with 75mm guns. The difference between 1938 and 1940 was that Germany had fixed many of their defects that they'd discovered in the previous years and had all the Czech tanks. Even had Hitler not been removed by a coup I don't think there is much of an argument to be made that Germany could have achieved anything in 1938 in the face of anything but appeasement.
|
On March 22 2017 01:36 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:27 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US? Who is going to pay for their land and personal property? What about all the businesses in the US that dealt with FL or CA that now have to deal with this new nation? Who is going to pay for their assets, because they live in NY or some other state? What about all those loans and other contracts that people signed for like 30 years(mortgages) that are no null and void? Is someone going to cover that cost? Is everyone supposed to write off the decades of investment into that state because one group of people decided to hold a vote to leave? Those are ridiculous questions to pose in this forum. I am not a legal expert. This would have to be negotiated. It would be an incredibly complex matter, obviously. Just as the Brexit negotiations are going to be long and complicated, but that's still happening (and some EU workers are in fact leaving the country because of that, one might argue they are essentially being displaced, perhaps?). Either way, I think the will of Crimean people should have been taken into account, and yet the west seems to be ignoring that in their approach to the annexation. There's plenty of legitimate criticism as well, of course, don't get me wrong.
i don't think the west is ignoring the will of the crimean people at all; it was never properly measured though. and there are proper legal procedures and systems for doing such things, and those were not done.
|
United States42784 Posts
On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote.
You'd send secessionists in the American Southwest, a land that used to be Mexico, back to Mexico? Why on earth do you think they'd have come from Mexico? They lived there as a majority sovereign people, they were absorbed into the United States as a minority, treated like shit, and you're saying that if they want their sovereignty back you'd exile them?
That's about as crazy as arguing that the United Kingdom should have sent the Irish republican dissidents back to Boston.
|
On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote.
We have been doing it for our entire history. It is the backbone of our nation.
|
On March 22 2017 01:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:36 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:27 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US? Who is going to pay for their land and personal property? What about all the businesses in the US that dealt with FL or CA that now have to deal with this new nation? Who is going to pay for their assets, because they live in NY or some other state? What about all those loans and other contracts that people signed for like 30 years(mortgages) that are no null and void? Is someone going to cover that cost? Is everyone supposed to write off the decades of investment into that state because one group of people decided to hold a vote to leave? Those are ridiculous questions to pose in this forum. I am not a legal expert. This would have to be negotiated. It would be an incredibly complex matter, obviously. Just as the Brexit negotiations are going to be long and complicated, but that's still happening. Either way, I think the will of Crimean people should have been taken into account, and yet the west seems to be ignoring that in their approach to the annexation. It can't be negotiated. Russia isn't going to pay the Ukraine for the land they are taking. They could never afford it. Do you know how much that would be valued at? The Ukraine will never be made whole in any way. They are just taking the land and use the "willing of the people" as the reason. And that "will of the people" is something they have been cultivating for well over a decade through propaganda and political influence. Folks in this long era of peace and general stability have not seen this before, but this is the exact shit that leads to conflicts. We don't fuck with each other's elections. We try to make deals with our neighbors to annex the land they live on. None of this stuff is new. It is only a matter of time before Putin looks for the next low hanging fruit that he feels should come home. PS: The same goes for US states. They can't afford the cost of becoming independent and paying off all the debts. That is why its not viable or an option. When people try to do this stuff, they want to do it for free.
There you go again with the propaganda excuse. 'It is not the will of the people, they have been unduly influenced by propaganda.'
It's a terrible excuse, I think. Your own opinion is the result of the information presented to you through media as well. Just as mine is, and just as anyone in the fucking world is influenced by the opinions they hear from their surroundings. From people believing in myths because their parents told them those fairy tales are true to people believing that their own country is exceptional and the only one that is indispensable somehow.
In my opinion, Europeans who consume too much American media (from actual news to infotainment such as the Daily Show, but even things like movies) are unduly influenced by Americans and can't see wrong from right anymore.
|
The FBI’s Counterintelligence Division is looking into the role far-right news sites including Breitbart, InfoWars and the Kremlin-backed RT might have played in Russia’s influence campaign during the U.S. presidential election, McClatchy reported Monday.
Automated computer bots strategically deployed unabashedly pro-Trump articles, which often contained falsehoods, from those sites on social media at moments when Trump’s campaign was flagging, anonymous FBI sources told McClatchy. The probe reportedly is looking at whether those publications willingly coordinated with Russian operatives in promoting their stories.
The inquiry is part of the FBI’s comprehensive investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, which Director James Comey confirmed Monday is also looking into any potential ties between Trump’s campaign staffers and Russian officials.
The White House, Breitbart and the FBI declined McClatchy’s requests for comment.
There've been a number of investigations into how so-called “fake news” stories distorted the media narrative and fueled the spread of election-related conspiracy theories during the 2016 race, including in The Washington Post and BuzzFeed.
Source
|
On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote.
Ukraine, Northern Ireland and the American Southwest are all examples of a superpower's oppression over the course of decades or centuries stirring up radicalized dissidents.
That's not a case against multiculturalism, that's a case against imperialism and oppression. A lesson the Dems and GOP still haven't learned about the Middle East.
|
On March 22 2017 01:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The FBI’s Counterintelligence Division is looking into the role far-right news sites including Breitbart, InfoWars and the Kremlin-backed RT might have played in Russia’s influence campaign during the U.S. presidential election, McClatchy reported Monday.
Automated computer bots strategically deployed unabashedly pro-Trump articles, which often contained falsehoods, from those sites on social media at moments when Trump’s campaign was flagging, anonymous FBI sources told McClatchy. The probe reportedly is looking at whether those publications willingly coordinated with Russian operatives in promoting their stories.
The inquiry is part of the FBI’s comprehensive investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, which Director James Comey confirmed Monday is also looking into any potential ties between Trump’s campaign staffers and Russian officials.
The White House, Breitbart and the FBI declined McClatchy’s requests for comment.
There've been a number of investigations into how so-called “fake news” stories distorted the media narrative and fueled the spread of election-related conspiracy theories during the 2016 race, including in The Washington Post and BuzzFeed. Source
Here's some of that supposedly "far right" news/infotainment that's shown on RT:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
Do you not see how incredibly retarded this argument of "RT is propaganda for the Kremlin" is?
|
On March 22 2017 01:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. You'd send secessionists in the American Southwest, a land that used to be Mexico, back to Mexico? Why on earth do you think they'd have come from Mexico? They lived there as a majority sovereign people, they were absorbed into the United States as a minority, treated like shit, and you're saying that if they want their sovereignty back you'd exile them? That's about as crazy as arguing that the United Kingdom should have sent the Irish republican dissidents back to Boston.
This is why it is imperative to keep a disgruntled minority as a minority. Importing more of that minority is a recipe for disaster. Obviously we can't deport and expel American citizens, but we sure as hell can get rid of everyone else who is not prepared to full embrace an American identity. And this is why it is critical that the US no longer tolerate anything that impedes cultural assimilation. In particular, tolerating bilingualism is one of the stupidest things that California is doing.
|
The RT had extremely positive coverage of Trump during the election. It was only in 2017 that they soured up to him.
On March 22 2017 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:48 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote. You'd send secessionists in the American Southwest, a land that used to be Mexico, back to Mexico? Why on earth do you think they'd have come from Mexico? They lived there as a majority sovereign people, they were absorbed into the United States as a minority, treated like shit, and you're saying that if they want their sovereignty back you'd exile them? That's about as crazy as arguing that the United Kingdom should have sent the Irish republican dissidents back to Boston. This is why it is imperative to keep a disgruntled minority as a minority. Importing more of that minority is a recipe for disaster. Obviously we can't deport and expel American citizens, but we sure as hell can get rid of everyone else who is not prepared to full embrace an American identity. And this is why it is critical that the US no longer tolerate anything that impedes cultural assimilation. In particular, tolerating bilingualism is one of the stupidest things that California is doing.
They have nothing to be disgruntled about if you don't treat them like shit.
If there's a Mexican uprising in the near future, where do you think it's going to happen: California or Arizona??
|
On March 22 2017 01:59 LightSpectra wrote:
The RT had extremely positive coverage of Trump during the election. It was only in 2017 that they soured up to him.
No, it didn't. It absolutely did not. I do not understand why you can say this. Look at those shows I posted. They are basically socialist shows. Those shows have been running all throughout the elections. RT didn't show Donald Trump speeches 24/7 as far as I know, that was CNN.
|
On March 22 2017 01:48 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:43 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:36 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:27 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot.
The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger.
Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US? Who is going to pay for their land and personal property? What about all the businesses in the US that dealt with FL or CA that now have to deal with this new nation? Who is going to pay for their assets, because they live in NY or some other state? What about all those loans and other contracts that people signed for like 30 years(mortgages) that are no null and void? Is someone going to cover that cost? Is everyone supposed to write off the decades of investment into that state because one group of people decided to hold a vote to leave? Those are ridiculous questions to pose in this forum. I am not a legal expert. This would have to be negotiated. It would be an incredibly complex matter, obviously. Just as the Brexit negotiations are going to be long and complicated, but that's still happening. Either way, I think the will of Crimean people should have been taken into account, and yet the west seems to be ignoring that in their approach to the annexation. It can't be negotiated. Russia isn't going to pay the Ukraine for the land they are taking. They could never afford it. Do you know how much that would be valued at? The Ukraine will never be made whole in any way. They are just taking the land and use the "willing of the people" as the reason. And that "will of the people" is something they have been cultivating for well over a decade through propaganda and political influence. Folks in this long era of peace and general stability have not seen this before, but this is the exact shit that leads to conflicts. We don't fuck with each other's elections. We try to make deals with our neighbors to annex the land they live on. None of this stuff is new. It is only a matter of time before Putin looks for the next low hanging fruit that he feels should come home. PS: The same goes for US states. They can't afford the cost of becoming independent and paying off all the debts. That is why its not viable or an option. When people try to do this stuff, they want to do it for free. There you go again with the propaganda excuse. 'It is not the will of the people, they have been unduly influenced by propaganda.' It's a terrible excuse, I think. Your own opinion is the result of the information presented to you through media as well. Just as mine is, and just as anyone in the fucking world is influenced by the opinions they hear from their surroundings. From people believing in myths because their parents told them those fairy tales are true to people believing that their own country is exceptional and the only one that is indispensable somehow.
Propaganda is a real thing. It isn't some mythical monster that stupid people in the 1920 and 1930s fell for and we are smarter now. It isn't an excuse, it is reality and something that Putin and his goverment employ. They have been doing it for a long time. We laugh at those "vanity shots" of Putin with a tiger or riding a horse with no shirt, but those are not jokes to a section of Russia. Now people can argue that the US does the same thing and I would agree in a lot of ways. Which is why it is super important we do not fuck around with other countries citizens as opposed to dealing with their elected goverment.
I understand that we are on the internet and there is the culture of everyone being a rational, free thinking person that can make their own decisions about information. That being manipulated is a personal failing and anyone can avoid it. That is the view modern tech culture has been pushing for a long time. Propaganda and social manipulation is the art of taking advantage of that very notion and turning it against the person. We are all susceptible to manipulation and being unaware of when it is happening.
|
United States42784 Posts
Regardless of what you say you think xDaunt, I think if you'd grown up in a country where it was an actual issue you'd probably see it with more pragmatism. I have absolutely no sympathy for the IRA and it really pisses me off that convicted terrorists are now members of the Northern Irish Assembly wearing suits and pretending that they didn't used to put bombs under the cars of police officers. I'm fine with the fact that the members of the Easter Rising were hung and I shed absolutely no tears for Bobby Sands and his ilk. But the Northern Irish peace process ultimately worked to massively reduce the violence in the area.
If there was a button that could have been pressed to simply kill all the terrorists in Northern Ireland then I'd say fuck the peace process and weigh the button down with a brick. But we don't have that so instead we have this shitty deal where both sides resent the hell out of it because that's what it took to stop the war.
I would absolutely love to be a moral absolutist on the issue, I have zero moral qualms about my view that the loyalist British majority should not be subjected to foreign rule due to the threat of terrorism. But moral absolutism doesn't help when dealing with an enemy with their own moral absolutism based on alien values and sometimes you can't kill them all.
|
On March 22 2017 01:36 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:27 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue. To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US? Who is going to pay for their land and personal property? What about all the businesses in the US that dealt with FL or CA that now have to deal with this new nation? Who is going to pay for their assets, because they live in NY or some other state? What about all those loans and other contracts that people signed for like 30 years(mortgages) that are no null and void? Is someone going to cover that cost? Is everyone supposed to write off the decades of investment into that state because one group of people decided to hold a vote to leave? Those are ridiculous questions to pose in this forum. I am not a legal expert. This would have to be negotiated. It would be an incredibly complex matter, obviously. Just as the Brexit negotiations are going to be long and complicated, but that's still happening. Either way, I think the will of Crimean people should have been taken into account, and yet the west seems to be ignoring that in their approach to the annexation. There's plenty of legitimate criticism as well, of course, don't get me wrong.
I'd be a little bit more sympathetic to the Crimean people's wish if Russia hadn't mass deported the Tatars in the 20th century. The resemblance with the German annexation of 'Sudetenland' also leaves a really bad taste in the mouth.
|
On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico. I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland. I'd rather tighten immigration controls and expel the secessionists, sending them back to Mexico. Regardless, the situations in the Ukraine, Ireland, and the American Southwest are all good examples of why multinationalism/multiculturalism are retarded policies for a nation to pursue and promote.
As demonstrated the example of the United States of America, a nation founded and lade of irish, italians, ashkenaz jews from Ukrain and Russia, swedes, frenchmen, english and scots, dutch, chinese, countless africans from all around the continent and people from countless other places going from Korea to Portugal.
Clearly those people never managed to work together, and clearly bringing all those cultures and nationalities together to build one nation was "retarded".
xDaunt, we get it, you have firmly xenophobic views and really don't like immigrants, but for Christ sake, take a second to think before writing because you give me headaches when you post stuff like that.
|
On March 22 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:
Regardless of what you say you think xDaunt, I think if you'd grown up in a country where it was an actual issue you'd probably see it with more pragmatism. I have absolutely no sympathy for the IRA and it really pisses me off that convicted terrorists are now members of the Northern Irish Assembly wearing suits and pretending that they didn't used to put bombs under the cars of police officers. I'm fine with the fact that the members of the Easter Rising were hung and I shed absolutely no tears for Bobby Sands and his ilk. But the Northern Irish peace process ultimately worked to massively reduce the violence in the area.
If there was a button that could have been pressed to simply kill all the terrorists in Northern Ireland then I'd say fuck the peace process and weigh the button down with a brick. But we don't have that so instead we have this shitty deal where both sides resent the hell out of it because that's what it took to stop the war.
I would absolutely love to be a moral absolutist on the issue, I have zero moral qualms about my view that the loyalist British majority should not be subjected to foreign rule due to the threat of terrorism. But moral absolutism doesn't help when dealing with an enemy with their own moral absolutism based on alien values and sometimes you can't kill them all.
It'd be nice if you mentioned that the British had done many evils just as bad what the IRA was guilty of, if for nothing else than the edification of unaware readers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
