|
|
On March 07 2014 04:15 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2014 21:20 Dlash23 wrote:On March 06 2014 21:13 Godwrath wrote:On March 06 2014 20:41 Dlash23 wrote:On March 06 2014 20:28 -Archangel- wrote:
Even if Russians are 58% (and those people don't just consider themselves Russian speaking Ukranians) it gives no rights for Russian military to invade.
And since when is every nationalist Nazi? By same logic both Russia and half of USA are Nazi. Did you read the history of Crimea? it was Russian region until 1954 year, when it was presented to Ukrain And 58% of population are exactly Russians, not Russian speaking Ukranians. And what kind of point is that one ? It is pretty simple: - Is Crimea Ukranian territory? Yes. - Is Ukrania a sovereign country? Yes. - Was there any danger for russians on Crimea? Nope. The excuses for occupation are laughable at best. Also, stop with the "but... but... the USA does this aswell!", because most posters in here call out when the USA does the same. It's kindergarden's logic, "i punched him because that other kid also punches other people!". of course you have all information, and know about how crimean tatars are ready at any time to cut all Russians in that region... would be a bloodbath if there no Russian army there at all. is he trolling or what?
Nah, it's just being brainwashed by propaganda.
|
On March 07 2014 04:20 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 02:23 radiatoren wrote:On March 07 2014 02:03 mcc wrote:On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master.
Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment.
In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour.
If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Hmm, well put, both posts. To add Crimea was promised in the early nineties that "soon" all regions that want to will be able to have referendum on independence or at least on returning to the old constitution. Of course once situation stabilized that promise was reneged upon, and Ukraine will never allow them to leave peacefully. On March 07 2014 01:35 radiatoren wrote:On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master.
Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment.
In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn have been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour.
If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Not only that. The crimean representatives were elected in a completely different socio-political climate and the legitimacy as a representative body for the people of Crimea therefore has to be questioned to begin with, when they are making as drastic decissions as they do. "Not only that" seems to imply that you agree with him, but your point seems to go against what I see as his argument. I am not going against his main delineations and it may be a silly detail, but he is using Crimeans as if it were a majority of the community. My point is that it is the provinsial leaders and not necessarily the crimeans as a people pushing it through. If we are talking authorities, the destinction seems important. Hence the referendum I assume, though how trustworthy will the results be is a rather big question.
They need to invite election observers from some international organisation like OSCE. If majority really wants to join Russia it seems like a perfect move.
|
On March 07 2014 04:20 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 02:23 radiatoren wrote:On March 07 2014 02:03 mcc wrote:On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master.
Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment.
In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour.
If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Hmm, well put, both posts. To add Crimea was promised in the early nineties that "soon" all regions that want to will be able to have referendum on independence or at least on returning to the old constitution. Of course once situation stabilized that promise was reneged upon, and Ukraine will never allow them to leave peacefully. On March 07 2014 01:35 radiatoren wrote:On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master.
Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment.
In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn have been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour.
If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Not only that. The crimean representatives were elected in a completely different socio-political climate and the legitimacy as a representative body for the people of Crimea therefore has to be questioned to begin with, when they are making as drastic decissions as they do. "Not only that" seems to imply that you agree with him, but your point seems to go against what I see as his argument. I am not going against his main delineations and it may be a silly detail, but he is using Crimeans as if it were a majority of the community. My point is that it is the provinsial leaders and not necessarily the crimeans as a people pushing it through. If we are talking authorities, the destinction seems important. Hence the referendum I assume, though how trustworthy will the results be is a rather big question.
And the reason the trustworthyness can be questioned is the authorities in Crimea (military, media, government, parliament etc,.). The further you buy into the "authority is guaranteed and legitimacy is not"-argument, the more important distinctions between powers, and especially their interests, become.
Edit: Added some further distinctions.
|
On March 07 2014 04:39 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 04:20 mcc wrote:On March 07 2014 02:23 radiatoren wrote:On March 07 2014 02:03 mcc wrote:On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master.
Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment.
In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour.
If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Hmm, well put, both posts. To add Crimea was promised in the early nineties that "soon" all regions that want to will be able to have referendum on independence or at least on returning to the old constitution. Of course once situation stabilized that promise was reneged upon, and Ukraine will never allow them to leave peacefully. On March 07 2014 01:35 radiatoren wrote:On March 07 2014 01:23 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Principles do not triumph or fail in a vacuum. As Proudhon wrote, "people react less to ideas and social constructs than to realities of power." The necessity of legitimacy exists, and we should move to support its fragility wherever we can, but in frank conversation, we must confess that legitimacy is ever the servant of authority, and not its master.
Yanukovych was not moved to restore the 2004 constitution because he was convinced of its superior political merits, but because of the contingencies of the moment.
In the same vein, had the Crimeans remained demure and recognised the new authority in Kiev, they would have never been granted the right to a referendum when the dust was settled, on the pretext that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That argument would have in turn have been backed by all the material and moral forces of Western states and media. By seizing power prior to affirming legitimacy, the goalposts are automatically shifted in their favour, and the moment is exploited because the crisis has opened a chasm of chaos where creative legal reasoning can seize the day and triumph, if exerted with sufficient support and vigour.
If you want to go the Neville Chamberlain route of "all changes are possible as long as they are implemented without force", then you hammer out an agreement guaranteed by all parties. This has not been undertaken because a referendum of full self-determination has never been the position of any of the interested parties; neither of the provisional government, nor of the Western Powers, nor, as of yet, the Russian government. The only people who have been involved in pushing it through are the Crimeans. Not only that. The crimean representatives were elected in a completely different socio-political climate and the legitimacy as a representative body for the people of Crimea therefore has to be questioned to begin with, when they are making as drastic decissions as they do. "Not only that" seems to imply that you agree with him, but your point seems to go against what I see as his argument. I am not going against his main delineations and it may be a silly detail, but he is using Crimeans as if it were a majority of the community. My point is that it is the provinsial leaders and not necessarily the crimeans as a people pushing it through. If we are talking authorities, the destinction seems important. Hence the referendum I assume, though how trustworthy will the results be is a rather big question. They need to invite election observers from some international organisation like OSCE. If majority really wants to join Russia it seems like a perfect move.
If only they would allow the OSCE into Crimea...
|
How gracious would it be if Putin took Crimea through a democracy procedure.
|
On March 07 2014 04:50 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:
How gracious would it be if Putin took Crimea through a democracy procedure.
If that happened before his "invasion" sure. But not anymore.
|
Interesting interview with the former head of the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (World Bank) on recovering Yanukovich's disappeared assets.
WERTHEIMER: The one with a private zoo.
GILMAN: With a private zoo and the golf course and the bowling alley, and all of the other stuff that went along with it. All of that basically was paid for by state funds. But a lot of those state funds didn't go directly to the property. A lot of it was basically skimmed off. Outrageous prices for chandeliers. Name plates - 10,000 U.S. dollars for name plates for the animals in the zoo.
All of that was skimmed off in terms of this holding company, Tantalite, which is in turn owned jointly by a U.K. and Austrian firm, which is in turn basically part of the bank holding by Yanukovych's son.
So you basically have a lot of those electronic records. You find out where those properties, those funds, landed. And the state basically then asked that the assets be frozen, that correspondent banking transactions, which are how moneys flow electronically around the world, are frozen, in order to prevent Yanukovych and all of his associates from moving the money and hiding it in a more difficult place.
WERTHEIMER: So with this much money flowing out of the country in a fairly complicated way - not into bank accounts but as sort of clouded as investments and companies - what do you think the chances are of getting very much of it back?
GILMAN: Well, I think that they're good to get 20 or 25 percent back, which is tragic. I mean it's tragic. I mean Ukrainians really need those funds. And the tragedy is basically the funds that the U.S. and U.K. are promising to funnel into the Ukraine are generally owed to Russian banks, which of course were part of the corruption in the Yanukovych regime because they were taking cuts off of the top - charging exorbitant funds, giving kickbacks and all of this.
source
On March 07 2014 03:28 Sent. wrote:
I hate how our media and politicians exaggerate the American involvement in Poland. Wow they're going to send 12 old jets here for a while, I feel much safer now!
Agreed, the SU37 is a superior fighter for the most part, not sure what F-16s are supposed to do against that except as a show of solidarity or something
|
+ Show Spoiler [huh, the link didn't work?] +
Edit: Had to think about this for a moment. Obama's rhetoric says that he considers the referendum an escalation of the crisis, something that will probably be used to force the EU into step 2 or even 3 of their reaction plan.
|
Russian Federation88 Posts
On March 07 2014 04:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 04:04 likeasu wrote:On March 07 2014 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
They protested because Yanokovich didnt want an EU treaty. noo... you kidding me. ARE YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN IT??!?!?!?! ahhahaahahah LOL So why for present time new ukrainian government didnt this stap???? If EU treaty is a real maidan MAIN reason... Why it isnt made immediately??!?! It was only stupid mative for getting power in the country. If Maiden main goal was to overthrow Yanokovich why did it do nothing until Yanokovich turned to violence? I Yanokovich didnt use violence nothing would have come off these protests. It makes 0 sense for them to be a mains to overthrow the government when the you realize that. Yanokovich overthrew himself. It is normal for protestors to be beaten and arrested in Russia. Its not normal in most of the remaining world. ps. To other people. Dont flame him for his typing. Not everyone knows how flawless english. He is making the effort to type. Make the effort to read it.
If I understood you right, I wanna to say "big thanks to you" =) sorry for lexicon and grammatic mistakes.
But I should say one thing about text you wrote:
It is normal for protestors to be beaten and arrested in Russia.
Why do you think so? From what facts? Stupid Pussy Riot or other shit stuff like this? Is this the only what you see from tv-reports from Russia? Pfff In March 2012 about 100.000 people were on strike "for clear votes" on Maneg square in the center of Moscow. 100 thousands of people and a lot of military people were standing "face to face" during all protest event. And what? No one seriously hit and sure no one killed. Of course police cached drunked or crazy provocateurs (idiots can be everywhere). Because the main target of oppositions and people was idea "government dont forget about us.. we are here".
The maidan main target was "getting top power". When peaceful methods didnt work, they have to spill some blood. Who is "they"? I dont know exact peoples names. To find their names you should understand who paid money for Maidan. 40.000 people were standing 3!!! months there. It was a little town with hot meal, bio-tuallets (not so comfortable like a double tuallets in Sochi of course^_^), energy, transport, flags, tribune, clothes, doctors, translation and so on... DO YOU THINK THAT ordinary people paid for it? People who believe in bright ideas were just toys and instrument.
|
On March 07 2014 05:08 likeasu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 04:13 Gorsameth wrote:On March 07 2014 04:04 likeasu wrote:On March 07 2014 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
They protested because Yanokovich didnt want an EU treaty. noo... you kidding me. ARE YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN IT??!?!?!?! ahhahaahahah LOL So why for present time new ukrainian government didnt this stap???? If EU treaty is a real maidan MAIN reason... Why it isnt made immediately??!?! It was only stupid mative for getting power in the country. If Maiden main goal was to overthrow Yanokovich why did it do nothing until Yanokovich turned to violence? I Yanokovich didnt use violence nothing would have come off these protests. It makes 0 sense for them to be a mains to overthrow the government when the you realize that. Yanokovich overthrew himself. It is normal for protestors to be beaten and arrested in Russia. Its not normal in most of the remaining world. ps. To other people. Dont flame him for his typing. Not everyone knows how flawless english. He is making the effort to type. Make the effort to read it. If I understood you right, I wanna to say "big thanks to you" =) sorry for lexicon and grammatic mistakes. But I should say one thing about text you wrote: Why do you think so? From what facts? Pussy Riot or other stuff like this? Is this the only what you see from tv-reports from Russia? Pfff In March 2012 about 100.000 people were on strike "for truth votes" on Maneg square in the center of Moscow. 100 thousands of people and a lot of military people were standing "face to face" during all protest event. And what? No one seriously hit and sure no one killed. Of course police cached drunked or crazy provocateurs (idiots can be everywhere). Because the main target of oppositions and people was idea "government dont forget about us.. we are here". The maidan main target was "getting top power". When peaceful methods didnt work, they have to spill some blood. Who is "they"? I dont know exact peoples names. To find their names you should understand who paid money for Maidan. 40.000 people were standing 3!!! months there. It was a little town with hot meal, bio-tuallets (not so double good like in Sochi sure ^_^), energy, transport, flags, tribune, clothes, doctors, translation and so on... DO YOU THINK THAT ordinary people paid for it? People who believe in bright ideas were just toys and instrument.
How do you know that you -- an ordinary person -- arent just a toy and instrument for 'they' ? que inception music.
|
Russian Federation88 Posts
How do you know that you -- an ordinary person -- arent just a toy and instrument for 'they' ? que inception music.
We all are, my frind, we all are. Its nature of people society, its politic =) But there are a different games with the same "toys"
|
1. Protestors at demonstrating peacefully in Kiev
2. No results are happening, so protestors start shooting each other to make it look like Yanukovich is the bad guy
3. Protestors overthrow the legitimate government and install illegitimate non-democratic rulers
4. Protestors begin campaign of causing physical harm to ethnic Russians in Crimea
5. Russian army(or was it local militias?) saves the day and stops the bloodshed.
---or----
1. Protestors at demonstrating peacefully in Kiev
2. Yanukovich feels threatened and orders the riot police to use any means necessary to get rid of them
3. This backfires, and Yanukovich flees to Russia
4. Putin feels threatened, and orders forces in to Crimea to assert his control over the area
Which of these scenarios is more likely?
|
On March 07 2014 05:14 likeasu wrote:Show nested quote +How do you know that you -- an ordinary person -- arent just a toy and instrument for 'they' ? que inception music. We all are, my friend, we all are. It's the nature of people's society, it's politics =)
Or you could come to live in tiny Estonia where you know all 20 politicians personally, and pretty much every other influential person, such as to banish any thought of grey cardinals calling the shots behind the scenes.
P.S. Fixed your previous message as my browser recommended. I don't think everyone is supposed to know perfect english (god knows many of the most powerful men in the world don't) but a spell checker on your browser/word/etc will quickly improve the quality of your writing, which is only good for you.
|
On March 07 2014 05:17 TheFish7 wrote:
1. Protestors at demonstrating peacefully in Kiev
2. No results are happening, so protestors start shooting each other to make it look like Yanukovich is the bad guy
3. Protestors overthrow the legitimate government and install illegitimate non-democratic rulers
3.5 Protestors in typical fascist fashion set new elections to cement their fascist rule
4. Protestors begin campaign of causing physical harm to ethnic Russians in Crimea
5. Russian army(or was it local militias?) saves the day and stops the bloodshed.
---or----
1. Protestors at demonstrating peacefully in Kiev
2. Yanukovich feels threatened and orders the riot police to use any means necessary to get rid of them
3. This backfires, and Yanukovich flees to Russia
4. Putin feels threatened, and orders forces in to Crimea to assert his control over the area
Which of these scenarios is more likely?
|
On March 07 2014 05:18 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 05:14 likeasu wrote:How do you know that you -- an ordinary person -- arent just a toy and instrument for 'they' ? que inception music. We all are, my friend, we all are. It's the nature of people's society, it's politics =) Or you could come to live in tiny Estonia where you know all 20 politicians personally, and pretty much every other influential person, such as to banish any thought of grey cardinals calling the shots behind the scenes. P.S. Fixed your previous message as my browser recommended. I don't think everyone is supposed to know perfect english (god knows many of the most powerful men in the world don't) but a spell checker on your browser/word/etc will quickly improve the quality of your writing, which is only good for you.
Just go for direct democracy guys 
|
On March 07 2014 05:14 likeasu wrote:Show nested quote +How do you know that you -- an ordinary person -- arent just a toy and instrument for 'they' ? que inception music. We all are, my frind, we all are. Its nature of people society, its politic =) But there are a different games with the same "toys"
But you seem so convinced that its fascist coup to create genocide in Crimea. What if its anti-Russian spies encouraged Yanukovich to behave the way he has to cause Russia to spend all this money to support him and anti-Russian spies in Crimea who have invited Putin to spend even more precious dollars. First they had him spend 15 billion dollars, but now the cost of all those soldiers and the economic support Crimea will need and the fall on the market...
|
On March 07 2014 05:17 TheFish7 wrote:
1. Protestors at demonstrating peacefully in Kiev
2. No results are happening, so protestors start shooting each other to make it look like Yanukovich is the bad guy
3. Protestors overthrow the legitimate government and install illegitimate non-democratic rulers
4. Protestors begin campaign of causing physical harm to ethnic Russians in Crimea
5. Russian army(or was it local militias?) saves the day and stops the bloodshed.
---or----
1. Protestors at demonstrating peacefully in Kiev
2. Yanukovich feels threatened and orders the riot police to use any means necessary to get rid of them
3. This backfires, and Yanukovich flees to Russia
4. Putin feels threatened, and orders forces in to Crimea to assert his control over the area
Which of these scenarios is more likely?
The top one up untill 4.
|
There's nothing quite like faith in the cooperation of mobs.
|
On March 07 2014 05:21 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 05:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 07 2014 05:14 likeasu wrote:How do you know that you -- an ordinary person -- arent just a toy and instrument for 'they' ? que inception music. We all are, my friend, we all are. It's the nature of people's society, it's politics =) Or you could come to live in tiny Estonia where you know all 20 politicians personally, and pretty much every other influential person, such as to banish any thought of grey cardinals calling the shots behind the scenes. P.S. Fixed your previous message as my browser recommended. I don't think everyone is supposed to know perfect english (god knows many of the most powerful men in the world don't) but a spell checker on your browser/word/etc will quickly improve the quality of your writing, which is only good for you. Just go for direct democracy guys
We're too shy.
On other news, I've been received these weird 'boycott Russian firms which support Putin' leaflets. But I don't recognize almost any companies here:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oolcRgz.jpg)
Anyone know where these leaflets are originating from?
|
Russian Federation88 Posts
On March 07 2014 05:18 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 05:14 likeasu wrote:How do you know that you -- an ordinary person -- arent just a toy and instrument for 'they' ? que inception music. We all are, my friend, we all are. It's the nature of people's society, it's politics =) Or you could come to live in tiny Estonia
If you invite me and my wife to guest a little and show interesting places, we`ll come with great pleasure. Tomorrow we fly in Egypt to get some sunny days vacation <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
