|
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 02:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:On March 22 2017 02:15 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 02:10 LightSpectra wrote: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. During the troubles the British were there at the request of the majority to protect them from a terrorist group. There were fuckups but had the IRA not been there the army wouldn't have been there either. Northern Irish republicans were a minority who hated the fact that they lived in a democracy which didn't allow them to get their way with the vote (ignoring obvious issues such as gerrymandering which were actual legitimate issues with how the democracy functioned) and turned to violence as a way to seize the power they couldn't legitimately win at the ballot box. Fuck them. Haha, okay. When it's terrorism against people you dislike it's just inevitable fuckups but overall totally legit. It's only terrorism when it's against people you like. Got it. If an individual decides "I have political grievances so I'm going to start bombing shit" then yes, that's terrorism. If the people collectively decide something through the political process and then the organs of the state, accountable to the people, do an act on behalf of the people and that act is wrong then yes, it's a fuckup. I really don't understand how you're struggling with this concept.
I've yet to hear any mention of the Ulster paramilitary from your posts. They were terrorists just as much as the IRA were. But all I've seen so far is "fuck the republicans" and an implicit "fuck the Sinn Fein."
Just answer me this, if a former UVF guy won a seat in the Northern Irish Assembly, would you say the same thing about him? If the answer's yes, then I have no objection whatsoever.
|
On March 22 2017 02:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:20 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. Can you show any examples of this that doesn't deal with immigration? Cause I know that immigration in past history didn't do so well, but that was because empires back then didn't have ways to deal with mass immigration. The Middle East? Yugoslavia? Any place where people were arbitrarily thrown together within the same border and expected to get along? Bolded the part that you contradict yourself. Yoguslavia was thrown together, while the U.S wasn't thrown together. I want you show a country that was in similar conditions to the U.S, and that was destroyed by multiculturalism. You asked specifically for examples not dealing with immigration. America is clearly a country that predominantly multicultural/multiracial through immigration. Pay attention to your own questions. Wait, what? What do you consider the default here? Native American? Were white guys the immigrants making it multiracial? Or do you now consider African Americans to be immigrants? Were the native Hispanic populations of the American Southwest also immigrants? People coming to America didn't make it multiracial. What made it multiracial was the fact that America was built on top of a bunch of different people who already lived there and then y'all brought a few million Africans in against their will. There really isn't much of a default. Huge numbers of immigrants came to the US from the colonial period through the 20th and into the 21st centuries. The American Southwest was largely vacant when it was annexed into the US. It was only during the latter half of the 19th century that it really started to get populated (through immigration), a process which accelerated during the 20th century.
http://cdm15963.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15963coll31/id/196/rec/3
Idk, this image shows 176 homes in New Mexico of actual natives - don't know how much was vacant, but it surely doesn't look like it was vacant.
|
The author of a groundbreaking 1988 study demonstrating the link between school meal programs and classroom achievement has denounced as “outrageous” the Trump administration’s assertion that no such link exists.
When Mick Mulvaney, director of Donald Trump’s office of budget management, told press on Thursday that the administration’s attack on school meal programs because they “don’t work”, he did not mean that they don’t feed hungry children
“Let’s talk about after-school programs generally: they’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. Guess what? There’s no demonstrable evidence that they’re actually doing that,” Mulvaney said. “There’s no demonstrable evidence they’re actually helping results, helping kids do better in school.”
That statement is “an outrageous, fallacious comment that clearly reflects a lack of knowledge, or perhaps even worse, dishonesty”, said physician Michael Weitzman in an interview with the Guardian. Weitzman is the former chair of pediatrics at New York University, where he currently teaches, and this year’s recipient of the John Howland award, the highest honor bestowed by the American Pediatric Society.
Weitzman is also an author of the 1988 study of Boston schoolchildren that showed a causal relationship between academic performance and expanded school breakfast programs for the first time. When the study was released, Weitzman argued, and still argues, that the cost to the public of school meals is a pittance compared with the benefit to society. The findings “clearly demonstrate that feeding children breakfast in school at a very modest cost – less than $1 a day – has positive effects on their educational attainment,” Weitzman told the New York Times at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/school-lunch-program-cuts-student-performance-link?CMP=share_btn_tw
|
On March 22 2017 02:46 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:20 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. Can you show any examples of this that doesn't deal with immigration? Cause I know that immigration in past history didn't do so well, but that was because empires back then didn't have ways to deal with mass immigration. The Middle East? Yugoslavia? Any place where people were arbitrarily thrown together within the same border and expected to get along? Bolded the part that you contradict yourself. Yoguslavia was thrown together, while the U.S wasn't thrown together. I want you show a country that was in similar conditions to the U.S, and that was destroyed by multiculturalism. You asked specifically for examples not dealing with immigration. America is clearly a country that predominantly multicultural/multiracial through immigration. Pay attention to your own questions. Wait, what? What do you consider the default here? Native American? Were white guys the immigrants making it multiracial? Or do you now consider African Americans to be immigrants? Were the native Hispanic populations of the American Southwest also immigrants? People coming to America didn't make it multiracial. What made it multiracial was the fact that America was built on top of a bunch of different people who already lived there and then y'all brought a few million Africans in against their will. There really isn't much of a default. Huge numbers of immigrants came to the US from the colonial period through the 20th and into the 21st centuries. The American Southwest was largely vacant when it was annexed into the US. It was only during the latter half of the 19th century that it really started to get populated (through immigration), a process which accelerated during the 20th century. http://cdm15963.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15963coll31/id/196/rec/3Idk, this image shows 176 homes in New Mexico of actual natives - don't know how much was vacant, but it surely doesn't look like it was vacant.
Good lord. Did you even read this post and consider how badly misplaced it is before posting it?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Crimea chose to be part of Russia. Too bad about the circumstances but in light of how the situation evolved in Ukraine it was basically a necessity to prevent a civil war (not worth rehashing everything because this is the wrong thread for that, but do look at East Ukraine). The argument against that hardly seeks to acknowledge the fact that people overwhelmingly backed such a decision. Hell, most of the Ukrainian garrison in Crimea decided to join the Russian army (to be fair Russia pays more than Ukraine but I'd like to hear how many of our own ex-military folk would switch allegiances for some more money).
In light of the fact that Crimea overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia and everything else, this is basically a settled matter. At some point within the next 50 years it will be formally acknowledged but for now it's basically informally acknowledged by all people who aren't dumb.
I guess given the starting point this is about the question of Ukraine being part of NATO. Which sounds like a whole lot of fun. We should do it because it'd probably be quite funny. I'd like to hear more about how the USSR invaded Germany out of the mouths of NATO officials.
|
On March 22 2017 02:49 LegalLord wrote:
Crimea chose to be part of Russia. Too bad about the circumstances but in light of how the situation evolved in Ukraine it was basically a necessity to prevent a civil war (not worth rehashing everything because this is the wrong thread for that, but do look at East Ukraine). The argument against that hardly seeks to acknowledge the fact that people overwhelmingly backed such a decision. Hell, most of the Ukrainian garrison in Crimea decided to join the Russian army (to be fair Russia pays more than Ukraine but I'd like to hear how many of our own ex-military folk would switch allegiances for some more money).
In light of the fact that Crimea overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia and everything else, this is basically a settled matter. At some point within the next 50 years it will be formally acknowledged but for now it's basically informally acknowledged by all people who aren't dumb.
I guess given the starting point this is about the question of Ukraine being part of NATO. Which sounds like a whole lot of fun. We should do it because it'd probably be quite funny. I'd like to hear more about how the USSR invaded Germany out of the mouths of NATO officials.
So when is Russia going to pay the Ukraine for the land they took? Because that wasn’t all owned by the people.
|
Ignore legal's nonsense; sometimes he spouts utter BS when it comes to russia issues.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:49 LegalLord wrote:
Crimea chose to be part of Russia. Too bad about the circumstances but in light of how the situation evolved in Ukraine it was basically a necessity to prevent a civil war (not worth rehashing everything because this is the wrong thread for that, but do look at East Ukraine). The argument against that hardly seeks to acknowledge the fact that people overwhelmingly backed such a decision. Hell, most of the Ukrainian garrison in Crimea decided to join the Russian army (to be fair Russia pays more than Ukraine but I'd like to hear how many of our own ex-military folk would switch allegiances for some more money).
In light of the fact that Crimea overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia and everything else, this is basically a settled matter. At some point within the next 50 years it will be formally acknowledged but for now it's basically informally acknowledged by all people who aren't dumb.
I guess given the starting point this is about the question of Ukraine being part of NATO. Which sounds like a whole lot of fun. We should do it because it'd probably be quite funny. I'd like to hear more about how the USSR invaded Germany out of the mouths of NATO officials. So when is Russia going to pay the Ukraine for the land they took? Because that wasn’t all owned by the people.
Probably about when the US pays Britain for the land they took.
|
Maybe if the Crimean referendum weren't done amidst occupation of a foreign military...
|
On March 22 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:
Maybe if the Crimean referendum weren't done amidst occupation of a foreign military...
You think that the occupation is the deciding factor in a region that is 60%+ ethnic Russian?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
On March 22 2017 02:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:
Maybe if the Crimean referendum weren't done amidst occupation of a foreign military... You think that the occupation is the deciding factor in a region that is 60%+ ethnic Russian?
Yeah, the polls showed 65% or so in favor of rejoining Russia in 2011, but the final referendum had 99% in favor. It was fixed.
Would it have won anyway if there was no occupation? Probably. But that doesn't mean it wasn't done under duress.
|
On March 22 2017 02:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:
Maybe if the Crimean referendum weren't done amidst occupation of a foreign military... You think that the occupation is the deciding factor in a region that is 60%+ ethnic Russian?
Well, obviously ethnicity is the only determining factor for desire for sovereignty.
Unless your tea is getting taxed.
|
Why are we arguing about Crimea in the US politics thread anyways?
|
United States42784 Posts
On March 22 2017 02:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:
Maybe if the Crimean referendum weren't done amidst occupation of a foreign military... You think that the occupation is the deciding factor in a region that is 60%+ ethnic Russian?
The Anschluss plebiscite was done following a military occupation in a nation that was ethnically identical to the nation that annexed them. That doesn't undermine the efforts of Austria to resist, nor legitimise the Anschluss vote.
|
So do I understand it correctly that if a part of Russia that is not very happy with being one agrees in a referendum that they want to leave, Russia will let them?
|
On March 22 2017 03:01 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:
Maybe if the Crimean referendum weren't done amidst occupation of a foreign military... You think that the occupation is the deciding factor in a region that is 60%+ ethnic Russian? Yeah, the polls showed 65% or so in favor of rejoining Russia in 2011, but the final referendum had 99% in favor. It was fixed. Would it have won anyway if there was no occupation? Probably. But that doesn't mean it wasn't done under duress.
Weirdly the approval rating for annexation went up after all the guns and military appeared. I’m not sure, but the fear of retribution might have had an impact in the polling.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 03:03 Nevuk wrote:
Why are we arguing about Crimea in the US politics thread anyways?
Somehow went this way from a talk about NATO taking Montenegro since a few people feel the need to complain about Russia at any given opportunity?
|
On March 22 2017 03:03 opisska wrote:
So do I understand it correctly that if a part of Russia that is not very happy with being one agrees in a referendum that they want to leave, Russia will let them?
Any such referendum would be rigged and not reflect the true will of the people, who already voted to join Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
