|
|
On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
That's the thing though. USA does the same stuff = everyone complain for a bit (except their allies, like UK) and that's it.
Russia does (or just planning to, in this case) this = massive shitstorm.
I don't support either one, but I kinda understand Russia's position as well. At least Ukraine is a neighbour country and they don't want to see another NATO base there. While US' excuse to invade Iraq was/is very questionable.
Also it would be naive to expect Russia play a fair game in the world of double standards. If other countries allowed to do that, so is Russia.
It's kinda sad actually. All those small countries are nothing, but a playgrounds for the big ones. Also it's clear, that all those international laws etc just don't work, big "players' do what they want whenever they want.
|
On March 04 2014 09:33 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 09:08 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 08:29 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 08:06 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:50 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 03:49 Kamille wrote:
David Chamberlain's government has already decided for the EU. Confirmed: Anyone leading Great Britain with the last name Chamberlain has no backbone. European leaders are doing exactly what their populations want from them, which definitely is not a war. Democracy in action. US will do exactly the same. Few warmongering fanatics that never experienced war, yet would love to plunge the continent in it are just pathetic. Right, that's why all kinds of concessions need to be made to local dictators. I think it is for the better of Ukraine, if there is no war between Europe and Russia  So better be thankful, that not everyone on the world is that triggerhappy What did you think about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990? Did you think the response, which eventually led to a military force invading and removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was "trigger happy"? Did you think it was the wrong thing to do? Was it acceptable to you that Kuwait was occupied by a foreign army? If you don't think the invasion was acceptable, and didn't think the coalition forces were too "trigger happy", then your logic is inconsistent. Even if your logic is consistent, the argument you presented is that of humans beings who have no moral fortitude and only care for themselves. It is the argument of "well, as long as my home town isn't invaded and occupied I don't care" and "as long as it happens to someone else but not to me..." Frankly, It is absolutely disgusting and I'm ashamed that people still think this way. What if this were your home town? What if it was you and your family, your life? Does that make a difference? The people of Crimea deserve better. Your attitude that other people in Europe or Russia are somehow more important than those in Crimea is revolting and stinks of elitism. In fact, it is just purely elitist. Russia invaded a sovereign country and has occupied a region there. That is unacceptable. Just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Totally unacceptable and the world responded then the correct way. With military force to free the people of Kuwait after a political solution was tried. In this instance, are we scared because Russia is stronger? Or do we simply not care for those in Ukraine? Are human rights being trampled in nations other than NATO nations acceptable but because Ukraine never signed on the dotted line? If the political solution does not work, the world must responds with force. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve it. We should not have one set of rules for this group of humans, and another set for another group of humans. That is elitism, and we are all children of the earth. There is a clear right and wrong here. What Russia did is wrong. We've got to make it right. It is just really sad that people present the argument that you did. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve better. If it were my hometown, I would certainly hope, that not some idiot across an ocean decides, that it should be the next battlefield... And my allies tries to negotiate a way out of it first... Tanks can roll, if all is lost. It may be unknown to you, but some people think of violence and military escalation as the absolute last resort measure. But of course armchair general from the US, who have not experienced any modern war on their own soil, and invaded a dozen countries post WW2, knows how things are done... Seriously, I just wish sevastopol was your own home town... Maybe the idea of bombs on your own head would cool you down, great desperado. Sanctioning stuff now basically finishes the issue... Russia gets it's territoroies, the west made it's sanction, story over... Neither side has any reason to move from this position anymore, the results are in place. Leaving the final position of the west open, also allows to get changes to the Russian one by negotiations, And if those fail, and the Russians finalize their position(e.g. by annexing crimea or creating a puppet nation), it won't take a week to sign those sanctions... You went from saying that you'd negotiate and if that didn't get you what was right and if that didn't work, then tanks could roll, to sanctioning stuff finishes the issue! What? Russia just gets it territory! That is absolutely the worse scenario! I wish you were a citizen of Sevastopol too, so you could understand exactly what that means. This isn't a joke. This isn't some political game. This is people's lives and self determination. Read the UN charter. You're just so willing to give up on people because your an elitist. You should be ashamed of yourself. Okay, I will quote the first two line of the UN charter just for you: Show nested quote +
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,
And no, I'm not ashamed, sorry.
Why did you stop reading:
CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
We gotta remove the threats to peace and suppress the acts of aggression. Giving Russia Crimea doesn't do that!
|
What are you talking about? The wose case scenario is war that leads to complete nuclear annihilation of the human population. Stop with your warmongering WW2 analogies. That was 75 years ago. Stop using this thread as an excuse to stroke your ego on your hobbyist military. This isn't a joke. This isn't just some minor political game. This are people's lives and self determination. Are your eye open now?
|
|
|
On March 04 2014 09:34 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:33 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 09:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 09:08 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 08:29 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 08:06 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:50 BronzeKnee wrote:Confirmed: Anyone leading Great Britain with the last name Chamberlain has no backbone. European leaders are doing exactly what their populations want from them, which definitely is not a war. Democracy in action. US will do exactly the same. Few warmongering fanatics that never experienced war, yet would love to plunge the continent in it are just pathetic. Right, that's why all kinds of concessions need to be made to local dictators. I think it is for the better of Ukraine, if there is no war between Europe and Russia So better be thankful, that not everyone on the world is that triggerhappy What did you think about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990? Did you think the response, which eventually led to a military force invading and removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was "trigger happy"? Did you think it was the wrong thing to do? Was it acceptable to you that Kuwait was occupied by a foreign army? If you don't think the invasion was acceptable, and didn't think the coalition forces were too "trigger happy", then your logic is inconsistent. Even if your logic is consistent, the argument you presented is that of humans beings who have no moral fortitude and only care for themselves. It is the argument of "well, as long as my home town isn't invaded and occupied I don't care" and "as long as it happens to someone else but not to me..." Frankly, It is absolutely disgusting and I'm ashamed that people still think this way. What if this were your home town? What if it was you and your family, your life? Does that make a difference? The people of Crimea deserve better. Your attitude that other people in Europe or Russia are somehow more important than those in Crimea is revolting and stinks of elitism. In fact, it is just purely elitist. Russia invaded a sovereign country and has occupied a region there. That is unacceptable. Just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Totally unacceptable and the world responded then the correct way. With military force to free the people of Kuwait after a political solution was tried. In this instance, are we scared because Russia is stronger? Or do we simply not care for those in Ukraine? Are human rights being trampled in nations other than NATO nations acceptable but because Ukraine never signed on the dotted line? If the political solution does not work, the world must responds with force. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve it. We should not have one set of rules for this group of humans, and another set for another group of humans. That is elitism, and we are all children of the earth. There is a clear right and wrong here. What Russia did is wrong. We've got to make it right. It is just really sad that people present the argument that you did. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve better. If it were my hometown, I would certainly hope, that not some idiot across an ocean decides, that it should be the next battlefield... And my allies tries to negotiate a way out of it first... Tanks can roll, if all is lost. It may be unknown to you, but some people think of violence and military escalation as the absolute last resort measure. But of course armchair general from the US, who have not experienced any modern war on their own soil, and invaded a dozen countries post WW2, knows how things are done... Seriously, I just wish sevastopol was your own home town... Maybe the idea of bombs on your own head would cool you down, great desperado. Sanctioning stuff now basically finishes the issue... Russia gets it's territoroies, the west made it's sanction, story over... Neither side has any reason to move from this position anymore, the results are in place. Leaving the final position of the west open, also allows to get changes to the Russian one by negotiations, And if those fail, and the Russians finalize their position(e.g. by annexing crimea or creating a puppet nation), it won't take a week to sign those sanctions... You went from saying that you'd negotiate and if that didn't get you what was right and if that didn't work, then tanks could roll, to sanctioning stuff finishes the issue! What? Russia just gets it territory! That is absolutely the worse scenario! I wish you were a citizen of Sevastopol too, so you could understand exactly what that means. This isn't a joke. This isn't some political game. This is people's lives and self determination. Read the UN charter. You're just so willing to give up on people because your an elitist. You should be ashamed of yourself. Okay, I will quote the first two line of the UN charter just for you:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,
And no, I'm not ashamed, sorry. Why did you stop reading: CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
We gotta remove the threats to peace and suppress the acts of aggression. Giving Russia Crimea doesn't do that!
Oh really? And where did Germany or myself said, that it would be ok or even part of the UN charter, what Russia is doing?
But as you are very fond of it, let's continue quoting, how disputes are to be solved.
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
I bolded the important part for you.
Exactly this is, what UK and Germany are doing... FIRST we negotiate... THEN we sanction... Not the other way around...
|
How about linking websites without massive spam?
|
Russia could qualify as the most self-sufficient country. It produces sizable quantities of Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, Metals, Wheat, Corn, timber and livestock. It imports automobiles, technology, medicines and fruits. Except for medicines, none of the others are too critical to stall an economy. This is why the erstwhile USSR was able to sustain that long alienating the world markets (foreign trade contributed to less than 4% of Soviet's GDP). Turning Russia back to the days of the USSR? I actually lived in those times, it would be pretty effective since Putin's premise is that he is created a great modern, european power. Not a neo-Empire. Consumer goods must flow.
|
On March 04 2014 09:34 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:31 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:30 hypercube wrote:On March 04 2014 09:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 09:08 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 08:29 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 08:06 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:50 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
Confirmed: Anyone leading Great Britain with the last name Chamberlain has no backbone. European leaders are doing exactly what their populations want from them, which definitely is not a war. Democracy in action. US will do exactly the same. Few warmongering fanatics that never experienced war, yet would love to plunge the continent in it are just pathetic. Right, that's why all kinds of concessions need to be made to local dictators. I think it is for the better of Ukraine, if there is no war between Europe and Russia So better be thankful, that not everyone on the world is that triggerhappy What did you think about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990? Did you think the response, which eventually led to a military force invading and removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was "trigger happy"? Did you think it was the wrong thing to do? Was it acceptable to you that Kuwait was occupied by a foreign army? If you don't think the invasion was acceptable, and didn't think the coalition forces were too "trigger happy", then your logic is inconsistent. Even if your logic is consistent, the argument you presented is that of humans beings who have no moral fortitude and only care for themselves. It is the argument of "well, as long as my home town isn't invaded and occupied I don't care" and "as long as it happens to someone else but not to me..." Frankly, It is absolutely disgusting and I'm ashamed that people still think this way. What if this were your home town? What if it was you and your family, your life? Does that make a difference? The people of Crimea deserve better. Your attitude that other people in Europe or Russia are somehow more important than those in Crimea is revolting and stinks of elitism. In fact, it is just purely elitist. Russia invaded a sovereign country and has occupied a region there. That is unacceptable. Just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Totally unacceptable and the world responded then the correct way. With military force to free the people of Kuwait after a political solution was tried. In this instance, are we scared because Russia is stronger? Or do we simply not care for those in Ukraine? Are human rights being trampled in nations other than NATO nations acceptable but because Ukraine never signed on the dotted line? If the political solution does not work, the world must responds with force. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve it. We should not have one set of rules for this group of humans, and another set for another group of humans. That is elitism, and we are all children of the earth. There is a clear right and wrong here. What Russia did is wrong. We've got to make it right. It is just really sad that people present the argument that you did. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve better. If it were my hometown, I would certainly hope, that not some idiot across an ocean decides, that it should be the next battlefield... And my allies tries to negotiate a way out of it first... Tanks can roll, if all is lost. It may be unknown to you, but some people think of violence and military escalation as the absolute last resort measure. But of course armchair general from the US, who have not experienced any modern war on their own soil, and invaded a dozen countries post WW2, knows how things are done... Seriously, I just wish sevastopol was your own home town... Maybe the idea of bombs on your own head would cool you down, great desperado. Sanctioning stuff now basically finishes the issue... Russia gets it's territoroies, the west made it's sanction, story over... Neither side has any reason to move from this position anymore, the results are in place. Leaving the final position of the west open, also allows to get changes to the Russian one by negotiations, And if those fail, and the Russians finalize their position(e.g. by annexing crimea or creating a puppet nation), it won't take a week to sign those sanctions... You went from saying that you'd negotiate and if that didn't get you what was right and if that didn't work, then tanks could roll, to sanctioning stuff finishes the issue! What? Russia just gets it territory! That is absolutely the worse scenario! I wish you were a citizen of Sevastopol too, so you could understand exactly what that means. This isn't a joke. This isn't some political game. This is people's lives and self determination. Read the UN charter. You're just so willing to give up on people because your an elitist. I am ashamed people think the way you do. FFS read what people say, not just substitute your own caricature. I did. He wrote "Sanctioning stuff now basically finishes the issue... Russia gets it's territoroies, the west made it's sanction, story over... " What am I missing? Don't stand there and berate me, educate me. Everything. What he meant: "Using sanctions now would lead to Russia annexing Crimea. It's better to withold threats now and try to get them to back down. IF that doesn't work there will be plenty of time for sanctions later." Yes, it wasn't particularly clear, not everyone is a native English speaker. But it wasn't that hard to figure out.
It wasn't clear at all. In fact, the way it was written said that sanctions are the solution allowing Russia to get it's territory and the west gets it's sanction.
As for the native English speaker piece, it isn't my fault that the 7th TL Commandment is: English is the official language.
Thank you for pointing that out though. Next time, try to do in the first post rather than berating me then correcting me after I asked you to.
I don't think sanctions are necessary, or even practical (they won't do any good) so I guess that mahrgell and me agree =)
Thanks again.
On March 04 2014 09:41 mahrgell wrote:
Exactly this is, what UK and Germany are doing... FIRST we negotiate... THEN we sanction... Not the other way around...
We do not disagree my friend.
|
On March 04 2014 09:32 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:30 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 09:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 09:08 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 08:29 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 08:06 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:50 BronzeKnee wrote:Confirmed: Anyone leading Great Britain with the last name Chamberlain has no backbone. European leaders are doing exactly what their populations want from them, which definitely is not a war. Democracy in action. US will do exactly the same. Few warmongering fanatics that never experienced war, yet would love to plunge the continent in it are just pathetic. Right, that's why all kinds of concessions need to be made to local dictators. I think it is for the better of Ukraine, if there is no war between Europe and Russia So better be thankful, that not everyone on the world is that triggerhappy What did you think about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990? Did you think the response, which eventually led to a military force invading and removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was "trigger happy"? Did you think it was the wrong thing to do? Was it acceptable to you that Kuwait was occupied by a foreign army? If you don't think the invasion was acceptable, and didn't think the coalition forces were too "trigger happy", then your logic is inconsistent. Even if your logic is consistent, the argument you presented is that of humans beings who have no moral fortitude and only care for themselves. It is the argument of "well, as long as my home town isn't invaded and occupied I don't care" and "as long as it happens to someone else but not to me..." Frankly, It is absolutely disgusting and I'm ashamed that people still think this way. What if this were your home town? What if it was you and your family, your life? Does that make a difference? The people of Crimea deserve better. Your attitude that other people in Europe or Russia are somehow more important than those in Crimea is revolting and stinks of elitism. In fact, it is just purely elitist. Russia invaded a sovereign country and has occupied a region there. That is unacceptable. Just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Totally unacceptable and the world responded then the correct way. With military force to free the people of Kuwait after a political solution was tried. In this instance, are we scared because Russia is stronger? Or do we simply not care for those in Ukraine? Are human rights being trampled in nations other than NATO nations acceptable but because Ukraine never signed on the dotted line? If the political solution does not work, the world must responds with force. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve it. We should not have one set of rules for this group of humans, and another set for another group of humans. That is elitism, and we are all children of the earth. There is a clear right and wrong here. What Russia did is wrong. We've got to make it right. It is just really sad that people present the argument that you did. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve better. If it were my hometown, I would certainly hope, that not some idiot across an ocean decides, that it should be the next battlefield... And my allies tries to negotiate a way out of it first... Tanks can roll, if all is lost. It may be unknown to you, but some people think of violence and military escalation as the absolute last resort measure. But of course armchair general from the US, who have not experienced any modern war on their own soil, and invaded a dozen countries post WW2, knows how things are done... Seriously, I just wish sevastopol was your own home town... Maybe the idea of bombs on your own head would cool you down, great desperado. Sanctioning stuff now basically finishes the issue... Russia gets it's territoroies, the west made it's sanction, story over... Neither side has any reason to move from this position anymore, the results are in place. Leaving the final position of the west open, also allows to get changes to the Russian one by negotiations, And if those fail, and the Russians finalize their position(e.g. by annexing crimea or creating a puppet nation), it won't take a week to sign those sanctions... You went from saying that you'd negotiate and if that didn't get you what was right and if that didn't work, then tanks could roll, to sanctioning stuff finishes the issue! What? Russia just gets it territory! That is absolutely the worse scenario! I wish you were a citizen of Sevastopol too, so you could understand exactly what that means. This isn't a joke. This isn't some political game. This is people's lives and self determination. Read the UN charter. You're just so willing to give up on people because your an elitist. I am ashamed people think the way you do. You are the one thinking war is a joke. There is a reason Ukraine has not intervened itself yet. This ís exactly a political game. The reason Ukraine hasn't intervened to defend itself, is because of people who think think "well as long as it doesn't happen to me I don't care" which this thread if full of. If Ukraine knew the west would support them, then Russian troops would have been getting shot at when they tried to cross the border.
Well they crossed the border before they announced that they would do anything. There has not been any 'west shows no support' phase before that. That's how this whole situation is where it is at now. And now the whole west is condeming russia. You have no idea what you are talking about and should take a rest.
|
On March 04 2014 09:44 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:30 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 09:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 09:08 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 08:29 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 08:06 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:50 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
Confirmed: Anyone leading Great Britain with the last name Chamberlain has no backbone. European leaders are doing exactly what their populations want from them, which definitely is not a war. Democracy in action. US will do exactly the same. Few warmongering fanatics that never experienced war, yet would love to plunge the continent in it are just pathetic. Right, that's why all kinds of concessions need to be made to local dictators. I think it is for the better of Ukraine, if there is no war between Europe and Russia So better be thankful, that not everyone on the world is that triggerhappy What did you think about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990? Did you think the response, which eventually led to a military force invading and removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was "trigger happy"? Did you think it was the wrong thing to do? Was it acceptable to you that Kuwait was occupied by a foreign army? If you don't think the invasion was acceptable, and didn't think the coalition forces were too "trigger happy", then your logic is inconsistent. Even if your logic is consistent, the argument you presented is that of humans beings who have no moral fortitude and only care for themselves. It is the argument of "well, as long as my home town isn't invaded and occupied I don't care" and "as long as it happens to someone else but not to me..." Frankly, It is absolutely disgusting and I'm ashamed that people still think this way. What if this were your home town? What if it was you and your family, your life? Does that make a difference? The people of Crimea deserve better. Your attitude that other people in Europe or Russia are somehow more important than those in Crimea is revolting and stinks of elitism. In fact, it is just purely elitist. Russia invaded a sovereign country and has occupied a region there. That is unacceptable. Just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Totally unacceptable and the world responded then the correct way. With military force to free the people of Kuwait after a political solution was tried. In this instance, are we scared because Russia is stronger? Or do we simply not care for those in Ukraine? Are human rights being trampled in nations other than NATO nations acceptable but because Ukraine never signed on the dotted line? If the political solution does not work, the world must responds with force. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve it. We should not have one set of rules for this group of humans, and another set for another group of humans. That is elitism, and we are all children of the earth. There is a clear right and wrong here. What Russia did is wrong. We've got to make it right. It is just really sad that people present the argument that you did. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve better. If it were my hometown, I would certainly hope, that not some idiot across an ocean decides, that it should be the next battlefield... And my allies tries to negotiate a way out of it first... Tanks can roll, if all is lost. It may be unknown to you, but some people think of violence and military escalation as the absolute last resort measure. But of course armchair general from the US, who have not experienced any modern war on their own soil, and invaded a dozen countries post WW2, knows how things are done... Seriously, I just wish sevastopol was your own home town... Maybe the idea of bombs on your own head would cool you down, great desperado. Sanctioning stuff now basically finishes the issue... Russia gets it's territoroies, the west made it's sanction, story over... Neither side has any reason to move from this position anymore, the results are in place. Leaving the final position of the west open, also allows to get changes to the Russian one by negotiations, And if those fail, and the Russians finalize their position(e.g. by annexing crimea or creating a puppet nation), it won't take a week to sign those sanctions... You went from saying that you'd negotiate and if that didn't get you what was right and if that didn't work, then tanks could roll, to sanctioning stuff finishes the issue! What? Russia just gets it territory! That is absolutely the worse scenario! I wish you were a citizen of Sevastopol too, so you could understand exactly what that means. This isn't a joke. This isn't some political game. This is people's lives and self determination. Read the UN charter. You're just so willing to give up on people because your an elitist. I am ashamed people think the way you do. You are the one thinking war is a joke. There is a reason Ukraine has not intervened itself yet. This ís exactly a political game. The reason Ukraine hasn't intervened to defend itself, is because of people who think think "well as long as it doesn't happen to me I don't care" which this thread if full of. If Ukraine knew the west would support them, then Russian troops would have been getting shot at when they tried to cross the border. Well they crossed the border before they announced that they would do anything. There has not been any 'west shows no support' phase before that. That's how this whole situation is where it is at now. And now the whole west is condeming russia. You have no idea what you are talking about and should take a rest.
Condemnation doesn't mean support.
Condemnation is what Poland got from Britian when Germany invaded. Did em no good. Too bad Britain and France promised support.
|
On March 04 2014 09:31 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 09:12 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 09:05 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 09:01 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 08:03 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 08:00 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 03:40 Saumure wrote:
[quote]
Please, tell me more about how you brought democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. How about Poland, Czehia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia instead?
And tell me how is democracy working out for you? Every x years (don't know where you live), you get the chance to vote for one out of two parties. Both will do basically the same thing, except for a couple of unimportant issues. You really don't get a say about anyting.
And however shitty it is, its still better than the one party, one tsar state built by Russians. Oh, now I understand Rubio's words, already history is being rewritten and we were given democracy by the West. We were just standing there not knowing what to do and good guys came and taught us democracy, because we never knew such a thing. You knew it. Then you lost it to the Germans and the Russians. And the Americans removed first the one then the other for you. One took much longer but your own attempt, like all small but proud democratic countries in the face of tanks, stalled. American's did not remove the Soviets. They just outlasted them, I see no reason to give them any credit for our current democracy. The Soviets wouldnt have withdrawn without the Americans or the CFE Treaty pressure. Your opinion, Soviets were done anyway. Simple existence of US is not enough reason to give them credit. Any existing adversary of the Soviet Union would achieve the same without ever lifting a finger. uh, the only other existing adversary of soviet union occupying your country were the nazis...and i dont mean the ukrainan junta of evil but the real deal, efficiently german You misunderstand. I meant that if there was not US, but some other opponent of USSR in Cold War and that opponent would not lift a finger to do anything, but protect itself and its allies, Soviet Union would still dissolve its empire due to economic and social issues. some sort of imaginary power that isnt the Germans who would be the only other rival to the Soviets in Europe?
It was meant as hypothetical to point out that there is no credit to be given when you did nothing that changed anything in regards to us becoming democratic. Soviet Union would collapse anyway and as long as the Western Europe was democratic we would become also since that was what we were before communist rule.
|
On March 04 2014 09:47 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:31 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 09:12 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 09:05 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 09:01 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 08:03 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 08:00 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
How about Poland, Czehia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia instead?
[quote]
And however shitty it is, its still better than the one party, one tsar state built by Russians. Oh, now I understand Rubio's words, already history is being rewritten and we were given democracy by the West. We were just standing there not knowing what to do and good guys came and taught us democracy, because we never knew such a thing. You knew it. Then you lost it to the Germans and the Russians. And the Americans removed first the one then the other for you. One took much longer but your own attempt, like all small but proud democratic countries in the face of tanks, stalled. American's did not remove the Soviets. They just outlasted them, I see no reason to give them any credit for our current democracy. The Soviets wouldnt have withdrawn without the Americans or the CFE Treaty pressure. Your opinion, Soviets were done anyway. Simple existence of US is not enough reason to give them credit. Any existing adversary of the Soviet Union would achieve the same without ever lifting a finger. uh, the only other existing adversary of soviet union occupying your country were the nazis...and i dont mean the ukrainan junta of evil but the real deal, efficiently german You misunderstand. I meant that if there was not US, but some other opponent of USSR in Cold War and that opponent would not lift a finger to do anything, but protect itself and its allies, Soviet Union would still dissolve its empire due to economic and social issues. some sort of imaginary power that isnt the Germans who would be the only other rival to the Soviets in Europe? It was meant as hypothetical to point out that there is no credit to be given when you did nothing that changed anything in regards to us becoming democratic. Soviet Union would collapse anyway and as long as the Western Europe was democratic we would become also since that was what we were before communist rule.
...and Western Europe was only democratic after 19444 because...of the United States..
|
Well, it would not have the same effect as an embargo on North Korea, surely...
But the way the economy works right now, the blow would still be fatal. Self sufficiency isn't enough in modern economics.
Even the damage to the the rest of the world would be big. Surely, Russia is not as crucial to the global economy as China, but still...
|
On March 04 2014 09:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't think sanctions are necessary, or even practical (they won't do any good) so I guess that mahrgell and me agree =)
Of course full sanctions would work. At horrible cost of course but Russia can't afford to cut ties with the western world.
Actually threatening Russia with war (which is what you seem to be suggesting) wouldn't work, because Russia's nuclear arsenal would make that threat not credible.
|
On March 04 2014 09:49 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't think sanctions are necessary, or even practical (they won't do any good) so I guess that mahrgell and me agree =)
Of course full sanctions would work. At horrible cost of course but Russia can't afford to cut ties with the western world. Actually threatening Russia with war (which is what you seem to be suggesting) wouldn't work, because Russia's nuclear arsenal would make that threat not credible.
No one is going to use nukes, and sanctions hurt Europe as much as Russia. Europe is dependent on Russia for energy.
I don't think it is the way to go. Hopefully there is a diplomatic solution.
|
On March 04 2014 09:34 TJ31 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
That's the thing though. USA does the same stuff = everyone complain for a bit (except their allies, like UK) and that's it. Russia does (or just planning to, in this case) this = massive shitstorm. I don't support either one, but I kinda understand Russia's position as well. At least Ukraine is a neighbour country and they don't want to see another NATO base there. While US' excuse to invade Iraq was/is very questionable. Also it would be naive to expect Russia play a fair game in the world of double standards. If other countries allowed to do that, so is Russia. It's kinda sad actually. All those small countries are nothing, but a playgrounds for the big ones. Also it's clear, that all those international laws etc just don't work, big "players' do what they want whenever they want.
I wish people would read up more thoroughly, and note the substantial differences between what the us has done and what Russia is doing.
Yes, US has done a lot of bad stuff; but there're still a number of very significant differences which people ignore, or they're just spouting off with little understanding of the situation.
|
On March 04 2014 09:53 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:49 hypercube wrote:On March 04 2014 09:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't think sanctions are necessary, or even practical (they won't do any good) so I guess that mahrgell and me agree =)
Of course full sanctions would work. At horrible cost of course but Russia can't afford to cut ties with the western world. Actually threatening Russia with war (which is what you seem to be suggesting) wouldn't work, because Russia's nuclear arsenal would make that threat not credible. No one is going to use nukes, and sanctions hurt Europe as much as Russia. Europe is dependent on Russia for energy.
Yes, thank you for pointing out the obvious. OTOH, it's still not clear to me what your suggestion is.
|
On March 04 2014 09:49 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:47 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 09:31 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 09:12 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 09:05 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 09:01 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 08:03 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 08:00 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Oh, now I understand Rubio's words, already history is being rewritten and we were given democracy by the West. We were just standing there not knowing what to do and good guys came and taught us democracy, because we never knew such a thing. You knew it. Then you lost it to the Germans and the Russians. And the Americans removed first the one then the other for you. One took much longer but your own attempt, like all small but proud democratic countries in the face of tanks, stalled. American's did not remove the Soviets. They just outlasted them, I see no reason to give them any credit for our current democracy. The Soviets wouldnt have withdrawn without the Americans or the CFE Treaty pressure. Your opinion, Soviets were done anyway. Simple existence of US is not enough reason to give them credit. Any existing adversary of the Soviet Union would achieve the same without ever lifting a finger. uh, the only other existing adversary of soviet union occupying your country were the nazis...and i dont mean the ukrainan junta of evil but the real deal, efficiently german You misunderstand. I meant that if there was not US, but some other opponent of USSR in Cold War and that opponent would not lift a finger to do anything, but protect itself and its allies, Soviet Union would still dissolve its empire due to economic and social issues. some sort of imaginary power that isnt the Germans who would be the only other rival to the Soviets in Europe? It was meant as hypothetical to point out that there is no credit to be given when you did nothing that changed anything in regards to us becoming democratic. Soviet Union would collapse anyway and as long as the Western Europe was democratic we would become also since that was what we were before communist rule. ...and Western Europe was only democratic after 19444 because...of the United States..
Ah, so you are playing this game. So the Romans are actually responsible for our democracy. Or maybe Soviets since they were also responsible for defeat of the Nazis and thus allowing us to be thought democracy by US.
The original claim was that US somehow brought us democracy. Direct causal link is that Gorbacev started the process of weakening the Soviet rule and we capitalized on it by getting rid of communist rule and installing democracy. All of that would happen no matter what the USSR's opponent in Cold War did.
|
On March 04 2014 09:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +Russia could qualify as the most self-sufficient country. It produces sizable quantities of Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, Metals, Wheat, Corn, timber and livestock. It imports automobiles, technology, medicines and fruits. Except for medicines, none of the others are too critical to stall an economy. This is why the erstwhile USSR was able to sustain that long alienating the world markets (foreign trade contributed to less than 4% of Soviet's GDP). Turning Russia back to the days of the USSR? I actually lived in those times, it would be pretty effective since Putin's premise is that he is created a great modern, european power. Not a neo-Empire. Consumer goods must flow.
"great modern power" and "empire" usually go hand in hand. Just saying lol. Russia is not communist, so consumerism will become a huge part of its economy (if it isn't already) like other advanced economies.
What I find interesting about that top answer is that it seems to imply USSR wasn't a hugely industrial, scientific country. That made me scratch my head.
On March 04 2014 09:49 mahrgell wrote:Well, it would not have the same effect as an embargo on North Korea, surely... But the way the economy works right now, the blow would still be fatal. Self sufficiency isn't enough in modern economics. Even the damage to the the rest of the world would be big. Surely, Russia is not as crucial to the global economy as China, but still...
Yeah, well, Russia doesn't have extreme overpopulation and wage slavery that produces goods for cheaper than anywhere else. But to try to intensely hurt Russia or do something that would severely piss them off would not be without extreme reprisals of some sort. I'd hate to imagine what they would do. Even without any reaction from Russia, the global economy would be hard-hit anyways.
EDIT: Also what mcc said below.
|
On March 04 2014 09:49 mahrgell wrote:Well, it would not have the same effect as an embargo on North Korea, surely... But the way the economy works right now, the blow would still be fatal. Self sufficiency isn't enough in modern economics. Even the damage to the the rest of the world would be big. Surely, Russia is not as crucial to the global economy as China, but still...
They would still be trading with China and many other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
