|
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 21 2017 08:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Glad to see we'll have a fashion designer helping to run the country.
|
On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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.
They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys.
|
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?
I wonder what the support for separatism is in Chechnya these days.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 03:08 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +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? I wonder what the support for separatism is in Chechnya these days.
Less, perhaps, than you would think. Truth is that Chechens are happy not to be in the middle of a civil war anymore.
Though I can't find a single poll within the past decade; it's kind of a settled matter.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys.
So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land?
|
I mean I'm Cherokee and I still haven't been paid for any lands
|
On March 22 2017 03:03 Nevuk wrote:
Why are we arguing about Crimea in the US politics thread anyways?
I'd say because the US loves to be politically involved everywhere across the world.
On March 22 2017 03:14 Nevuk wrote:
I mean I'm Cherokee and I still haven't been paid for any lands
Your people didn't believe in ownership of land, that's your own fault (joke)
On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land?
I've been getting that same perception from various comments in this discussion. It's somehow only OK for sovereignty and borders to change if there's a war involved. You'd think people would rather avoid violence, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
|
On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land?
That we didn’t get along for a generation after the revolution and the British Empire was openly aggressive with US traders for that entire time. Their allies too. It is a pipe dream to think the Ukraine will get along with newly annexed Crimea.
|
On March 22 2017 03:15 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:03 Nevuk wrote:
Why are we arguing about Crimea in the US politics thread anyways? I'd say because the US loves to be politically involved everywhere across the world. Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:14 Nevuk wrote:
I mean I'm Cherokee and I still haven't been paid for any lands Your people didn't believe in ownership of land, that's your own fault (joke)
The Cherokee actually went really far into being southern gentlemen and owning plantations. Even before they started that they were mostly farmers iirc though. They also won in the supreme court over the issue of lands, but Jackson said "let the courts enforce their ruling" and ignored it. I'm one of the descendants of the luckier group who refused to move and basically hid in mountains that the US deemed worthless, but the principle is still there. I'm not actually arguing that the US needs to do anything about it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land? That we didn’t get along for a generation after the revolution and the British Empire was openly aggressive with US traders for that entire time. Their allies too. It is a pipe dream to think the Ukraine will get along with newly annexed Crimea.
I give it about another decade of unhappiness. I give it a 30 percent chance that after the current leadership gets chased out for being terrible, they just say fuck it and take back Yanukovich. Because at this point, why not?
|
On March 22 2017 03:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:20 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land? That we didn’t get along for a generation after the revolution and the British Empire was openly aggressive with US traders for that entire time. Their allies too. It is a pipe dream to think the Ukraine will get along with newly annexed Crimea. I give it about another decade of unhappiness. I give it a 30 percent chance that after the current leadership gets chased out for being terrible, they just say fuck it and take back Yanukovich. Because at this point, why not?
And in that time, don’t be shocked if the rest of Europe decides that Russia can’t be trusted to not roll over the boarder when they feel some section of land should be theirs. Because that is has been the status quo for a while now and someone decided they didn’t want to do it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:20 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land? That we didn’t get along for a generation after the revolution and the British Empire was openly aggressive with US traders for that entire time. Their allies too. It is a pipe dream to think the Ukraine will get along with newly annexed Crimea. I give it about another decade of unhappiness. I give it a 30 percent chance that after the current leadership gets chased out for being terrible, they just say fuck it and take back Yanukovich. Because at this point, why not? And in that time, don’t be shocked if the rest of Europe decides that Russia can’t be trusted to not roll over the boarder when they feel some section of land should be theirs. Because that is has been the status quo for a while now and someone decided they didn’t want to do it.
Eh, not sure where you're going with any of this. Seems just like aimless "fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia" circular logic. Certainly isn't a coherent argument in any of this.
|
On March 22 2017 02:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:22 brian 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: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:
[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? 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. This is the problem with you Regressive Leftists. Your heads are so far up the posterior of the politically correct that you automatically ascribe any questioning of the wisdom of unrestricted multiculturalism to xenophobia. How dull. And how wrong. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Singular national identity is a critical element to national stability. It takes an awful lot of hubris to presume that America is some how specially exempt from these forces. It's not. And let me cue you in on something so that your next post shows a little more critical thinking. National identity and cultural identity are not the same as racial identity. My children are a mix of the following races: Lebanese, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Dutch, and Czhech. However, by the time that they are adults, they will unequivocally self-identify as Americans. Why? Because they will be in an environment where Americanism will be instilled into them. Americans used to do this on a national level, but the radical Left has slowly but surely put the brakes on it. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. this post is so full of ridiculous bullshit it was almost hard to swallow. your own example is full of what some would call multiculturalism. an american identity being that which is of multiple nationalities. calling that acceptable americanism just because you excluded mexicans boils down to just plain racism. our entire national identity's foundation is multiculturalism. in before you call this overt PC'ness for calling you out on just flat stupidity. It looks like you don't understand the differences between nationality, culture, and race.
The same way you did when you listed a bunch of nationalities and called them races when talking about your kids?
|
On March 22 2017 03:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:20 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land? That we didn’t get along for a generation after the revolution and the British Empire was openly aggressive with US traders for that entire time. Their allies too. It is a pipe dream to think the Ukraine will get along with newly annexed Crimea. I give it about another decade of unhappiness. I give it a 30 percent chance that after the current leadership gets chased out for being terrible, they just say fuck it and take back Yanukovich. Because at this point, why not? And in that time, don’t be shocked if the rest of Europe decides that Russia can’t be trusted to not roll over the boarder when they feel some section of land should be theirs. Because that is has been the status quo for a while now and someone decided they didn’t want to do it. Eh, not sure where you're going with any of this. Seems just like aimless "fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia" circular logic. Certainly isn't a coherent argument in any of this.
You broke the rules. Respect nation’s boarders and deal directly with their governments. They are old rules and exist for a reason. No one has broken them in a very long time. So yeah, the response is “fuck the people who broke the rules we all agreed to play by”.
Don’t hack our political parties either. Its not rocket science. I get it that you folks don’t hold real elections over there, but we take them seriously here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 03:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:33 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:20 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land? That we didn’t get along for a generation after the revolution and the British Empire was openly aggressive with US traders for that entire time. Their allies too. It is a pipe dream to think the Ukraine will get along with newly annexed Crimea. I give it about another decade of unhappiness. I give it a 30 percent chance that after the current leadership gets chased out for being terrible, they just say fuck it and take back Yanukovich. Because at this point, why not? And in that time, don’t be shocked if the rest of Europe decides that Russia can’t be trusted to not roll over the boarder when they feel some section of land should be theirs. Because that is has been the status quo for a while now and someone decided they didn’t want to do it. Eh, not sure where you're going with any of this. Seems just like aimless "fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia" circular logic. Certainly isn't a coherent argument in any of this. You broke the rules. Respect nation’s boarders and deal directly with their governments. They are old rules and exist for a reason. No one has broken them in a very long time. So yeah, the response is “fuck the people who broke the rules we all agreed to play by”. Don’t hack our political parties either. Its not rocket science. I get it that you folks don’t hold real elections over there, but we take them seriously here.
Yup, sounds like trying to whine more than making any real point. Oh well, I guess the reality of a Trump presidency causes some people to lose their mind.
Maybe don't try to pretend that a terrible candidate is electable next time and avoid 90% of all the troubles that happened this time around. Can't even beat a pussy grabber and apparently it's Russia's fault. Hacking didn't make Trump have the opening he needed to win.
|
On March 22 2017 03:36 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 02:25 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2017 02:22 brian 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: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:
[quote]
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":
[quote]
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. This is the problem with you Regressive Leftists. Your heads are so far up the posterior of the politically correct that you automatically ascribe any questioning of the wisdom of unrestricted multiculturalism to xenophobia. How dull. And how wrong. History is replete with examples where nations, countries, and empires were destroyed by the forces of multiculturalism. Singular national identity is a critical element to national stability. It takes an awful lot of hubris to presume that America is some how specially exempt from these forces. It's not. And let me cue you in on something so that your next post shows a little more critical thinking. National identity and cultural identity are not the same as racial identity. My children are a mix of the following races: Lebanese, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Dutch, and Czhech. However, by the time that they are adults, they will unequivocally self-identify as Americans. Why? Because they will be in an environment where Americanism will be instilled into them. Americans used to do this on a national level, but the radical Left has slowly but surely put the brakes on it. Promoting policies that dilute American national identity is nothing short of a national suicide pact. this post is so full of ridiculous bullshit it was almost hard to swallow. your own example is full of what some would call multiculturalism. an american identity being that which is of multiple nationalities. calling that acceptable americanism just because you excluded mexicans boils down to just plain racism. our entire national identity's foundation is multiculturalism. in before you call this overt PC'ness for calling you out on just flat stupidity. It looks like you don't understand the differences between nationality, culture, and race. The same way you did when you listed a bunch of nationalities and called them races when talking about your kids?
Eh, fair point. There's arguably some sloppiness in the terminology as applied there, but it doesn't affect my core point.
|
On March 22 2017 03:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:33 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:20 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote: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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land? That we didn’t get along for a generation after the revolution and the British Empire was openly aggressive with US traders for that entire time. Their allies too. It is a pipe dream to think the Ukraine will get along with newly annexed Crimea. I give it about another decade of unhappiness. I give it a 30 percent chance that after the current leadership gets chased out for being terrible, they just say fuck it and take back Yanukovich. Because at this point, why not? And in that time, don’t be shocked if the rest of Europe decides that Russia can’t be trusted to not roll over the boarder when they feel some section of land should be theirs. Because that is has been the status quo for a while now and someone decided they didn’t want to do it. Eh, not sure where you're going with any of this. Seems just like aimless "fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia" circular logic. Certainly isn't a coherent argument in any of this. You broke the rules. Respect nation’s borders and deal directly with their governments. They are old rules and exist for a reason. No one has broken them in a very long time. So yeah, the response is “fuck the people who broke the rules we all agreed to play by”. Don’t hack our political parties either. Its not rocket science. I get it that you folks don’t hold real elections over there, but we take them seriously here.
My response to the highlighted part: ..................................................................................................................................................
Also, with regards to hacking (aka interfering) in elections:
..................................................................................................................................................
It is really fucking unbearable [to read comments like that from someone with "United States" next to their name].
|
On March 22 2017 03:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:37 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:33 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:20 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 03:08 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 22 2017 02:50 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. They beat the shit out of us in the war of 1812 and then we got along. But I’m glad you finally admitted your country stole the land and silenced any opposition to taking it, which is what we did with the Torys. So what you're trying to say is that you have to fight a war and then get along in order to avoid having to pay for the land? That we didn’t get along for a generation after the revolution and the British Empire was openly aggressive with US traders for that entire time. Their allies too. It is a pipe dream to think the Ukraine will get along with newly annexed Crimea. I give it about another decade of unhappiness. I give it a 30 percent chance that after the current leadership gets chased out for being terrible, they just say fuck it and take back Yanukovich. Because at this point, why not? And in that time, don’t be shocked if the rest of Europe decides that Russia can’t be trusted to not roll over the boarder when they feel some section of land should be theirs. Because that is has been the status quo for a while now and someone decided they didn’t want to do it. Eh, not sure where you're going with any of this. Seems just like aimless "fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia fuck Russia" circular logic. Certainly isn't a coherent argument in any of this. You broke the rules. Respect nation’s boarders and deal directly with their governments. They are old rules and exist for a reason. No one has broken them in a very long time. So yeah, the response is “fuck the people who broke the rules we all agreed to play by”. Don’t hack our political parties either. Its not rocket science. I get it that you folks don’t hold real elections over there, but we take them seriously here. Yup, sounds like trying to whine more than making any real point. Oh well, I guess the reality of a Trump presidency causes some people to lose their mind. Maybe don't try to pretend that a terrible candidate is electable next time and avoid 90% of all the troubles that happened this time around. Can't even beat a pussy grabber and apparently it's Russia's fault. Hacking didn't make Trump have the opening he needed to win.
LL, if you just admitted you were from Russia and are Pro-Russia because you are from Russia, we wouldn’t be having this snippy argument. But sadly, you decided to operate a less than open manner and people caught on. So now people see you for the disingenuous shill that you are and no one really takes you that seriously.
|
United States42784 Posts
xDaunt, you don't get to say that Spanish is incompatible with being American when you build America on top of Spanish lands occupied by people who speak Spanish. As a Brit I don't go to Wales and object to the bilingual road signs because I get that the time to object to the fact that some people in my country speak Welsh would have been around the time that we forced their ancestors to live in my country. Back when we did that we implicitly accepted that we wanted to incorporate the Welsh into our predominantly French (at the time) national identity. And the Welsh have proven themselves to be worthy subjects of the crown a hundred times over so who gives a fuck if they speak Welsh.
Same deal with California, the Hispanic population and Spanish. You can't expand your nation to include new areas without also expanding your definition of what it means to be a citizen of your nation to include the population of those areas. Speaking Spanish is no more incompatible with being American than speaking Welsh is with being British. The Welsh like being British and I like having them and that relationship will continue to be good as long as no idiot comes along and says "they're not allowed to speak Welsh anymore, English will be the national language, fuck them".
Hispanic people will identify as American and want to be American more if you don't tell them that they're fundamentally un-American for speaking their native languages and having their own cultural legacy. But if you spend so much time insisting that they are fundamentally un-American that they actually believe you then you can hardly blame them when they subsequently agree that they're not Americans and would like to be separate.
|
Don't forget Hawaii. I find this instantly adapt to our culture thing annoying.
When my grandparents came from Ireland they lived in an Irish neighborhood in New York and spent the weekends going to gaelic football games. My dad turned out fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
