edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
If you are someone like China, Putin is a nice friend to distract the West with but what happens if tomorrow "Taiwan Self Defense Forces" in US/Japanese army uniforms shows up and then Taiwan referendum votes to join Japan/USA? Not a nice precedent. Lots of those countries have situations like that.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
Voting goes on the record... China definitely will not send an official message that it supports acts such as what happened in Crimea, even if it would like to go against the US and Europe. Those abstentions show that Russia's actions are too far from normality even for its allies.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
If you are someone like China, Putin is a nice friend to distract the West with but what happens if tomorrow "Taiwan Self Defense Forces" in US/Japanese army uniforms shows up and then Taiwan referendum votes to join Japan/USA? Not a nice precedent. Lots of those countries have situations like that.
Thing is that you can't call someone as "allies" or "enemies" considering this.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
Voting goes on the record... China definitely will not send an official message that it supports acts such as what happened in Crimea, even if it would like to go against the US and Europe. Those abstentions show that Russia's actions are too far from normality even for its allies.
And our ambassador said that big Western players pressured a lot of lesser countries hard to vote for resolution. Anyway, sad thing is that noone cares about those resolutions.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
If you are someone like China, Putin is a nice friend to distract the West with but what happens if tomorrow "Taiwan Self Defense Forces" in US/Japanese army uniforms shows up and then Taiwan referendum votes to join Japan/USA? Not a nice precedent. Lots of those countries have situations like that.
Thing is that you can't call someone as "allies" or "enemies" considering this.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
Voting goes on the record... China definitely will not send an official message that it supports acts such as what happened in Crimea, even if it would like to go against the US and Europe. Those abstentions show that Russia's actions are too far from normality even for its allies.
And our ambassador said that big Western players pressured a lot of lesser countries hard to vote for resolution. Anyway, sad thing is that noone cares about those resolutions.
Some just don't care about what happens there and want to maintain their current relations with both Russia and the West like a bunch of fiscal paradises, a bunch of oil exporters and some heavily corrupted or unstable countries. They don't want to be pointed at and just want to be left alone.
On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote: - why crimea? - becausovo
I guess it makes people sleep better, pointing at other countries mistakes.
Fun part is, in civilized countries you learn in kindergarden already that just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right if you do it as well.
1. It was a joke. (If you didnt undertand) 2. Count please victims by "democratic" NATO in Yugoslavia (about 5000 soldiers and 1700 civilians were killed. I was using Wikipedia), Afganistan (3600 civilians were killed) and by "demonic" Russia in Crimie (0!!!!).
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
If you are someone like China, Putin is a nice friend to distract the West with but what happens if tomorrow "Taiwan Self Defense Forces" in US/Japanese army uniforms shows up and then Taiwan referendum votes to join Japan/USA? Not a nice precedent. Lots of those countries have situations like that.
Thing is that you can't call someone as "allies" or "enemies" considering this.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
Voting goes on the record... China definitely will not send an official message that it supports acts such as what happened in Crimea, even if it would like to go against the US and Europe. Those abstentions show that Russia's actions are too far from normality even for its allies.
And our ambassador said that big Western players pressured a lot of lesser countries hard to vote for resolution. Anyway, sad thing is that noone cares about those resolutions.
Actually, diplomatically, these matter a ton. And don't think Russia didn't pull out all the stops to get countries to vote and abstain as well. Armenia and Belarus were opposed to the Crimean action only a few weeks ago...
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
If you are someone like China, Putin is a nice friend to distract the West with but what happens if tomorrow "Taiwan Self Defense Forces" in US/Japanese army uniforms shows up and then Taiwan referendum votes to join Japan/USA? Not a nice precedent. Lots of those countries have situations like that.
This is somewhat an inadequate analogy because Taiwan is already extremely closely aligned with the US and they are entirely independent of China. Crimea was Ukrainian territory and wasn't practically in Russia's back pocket. Far from it really. Also, no one in the Far East likes Japan. :S
Otherwise, I agree, we would have an interesting scenario to say the least if something like that were to happen. It would be a matter of asking what we in the US do in response. I don't know what we'd do. Russia and China have good relations regardless though, and in the sense of old European alliances, where the involved countries were mostly on par. Not like USA and our relations with countries, where we're just a giant wolf and them a bunch of toy poodles :S
2. Count please victims by "democratic" NATO in Yugoslavia (+Irac +Afganistan) and by "demonic" Russia in Crimie.
How many died in afghanistan 79-89, when russia was "fighting an honorful war against terror" (small hint, "bit" more than all of those together).
How many would've died a couple of weeks ago if the ukrainian soldiers would actually have fought back, as they had every right to? The only reason russia didn't produce another bloodbath was ukrainian soldiers being incredibly patient. (edit: you seem to have no idea what havoc artillery can produce - you know, the artillery russia shipped over there, and is not known as a precision instrument?)
And, again. Nobody in this thread needs to count for how many deaths america is responsible. That happens more than enough in the respective threads, me being one of them.
2. Count please victims by "democratic" NATO in Yugoslavia (+Irac +Afganistan) and by "demonic" Russia in Crimie.
How many died in afghanistan 79-89, when russia was "fighting an honorful war against terror"?
How many would've died a couple of weeks ago if the ukrainian soldiers would actually have fought back, as they had every right to? The only reason russia didn't produce another bloodbath was ukrainian soldiers being incredibly patient.
And, again. Nobody in this thread needs to count for how many deaths america is responsible. That happens more than enough in the respective threads, me being one of them.
Jesus, why do people keep bringing up US and NATO? This thread isn't about that. Everyone is well aware of what the US has done. Everyone is well-aware that Ukraine is a contention of Russian and US/EU political interests, ie. Russia does not care about imaginary Nazis and US doesn't care about Ukraine's well-being. It's a rope in a tug-of-war. IMO, there is no need to continually bring up what America has done, especially since almost everyone acknowledges it.
2. Count please victims by "democratic" NATO in Yugoslavia (+Irac +Afganistan) and by "demonic" Russia in Crimie.
How many died in afghanistan 79-89, when russia was "fighting an honorful war against terror"?
How many would've died a couple of weeks ago if the ukrainian soldiers would actually have fought back, as they had every right to? The only reason russia didn't produce another bloodbath was ukrainian soldiers being incredibly patient.
And, again. Nobody in this thread needs to count for how many deaths america is responsible. That happens more than enough in the respective threads, me being one of them.
Jesus, why do people keep bringing up US and NATO? This thread isn't about that. Everyone is well aware of it. Everyone is well-aware that Ukraine is a contention of Russian and US/EU political interests, ie. Russia does not care about imaginary Nazis and US doesn't care about Ukraine's well-being. It's a rope in a tug-of-war. IMO, there is no need to continually bring up how much America has wrecked.
2. Count please victims by "democratic" NATO in Yugoslavia (+Irac +Afganistan) and by "demonic" Russia in Crimie.
How many died in afghanistan 79-89, when russia was "fighting an honorful war against terror"?
How many would've died a couple of weeks ago if the ukrainian soldiers would actually have fought back, as they had every right to? The only reason russia didn't produce another bloodbath was ukrainian soldiers being incredibly patient.
And, again. Nobody in this thread needs to count for how many deaths america is responsible. That happens more than enough in the respective threads, me being one of them.
Jesus, why do people keep bringing up US and NATO? This thread isn't about that. Everyone is well aware of it. Everyone is well-aware that Ukraine is a contention of Russian and US/EU political interests, ie. Russia does not care about imaginary Nazis and US doesn't care about Ukraine's well-being. It's a rope in a tug-of-war. IMO, there is no need to continually bring up how much America has wrecked.
Why exactly are you quoting me?
Slight frustration that any thread on TL that has 0% to do with the US, ends up being about the US.
2. Count please victims by "democratic" NATO in Yugoslavia (+Irac +Afganistan) and by "demonic" Russia in Crimie.
How many died in afghanistan 79-89, when russia was "fighting an honorful war against terror"?
How many would've died a couple of weeks ago if the ukrainian soldiers would actually have fought back, as they had every right to? The only reason russia didn't produce another bloodbath was ukrainian soldiers being incredibly patient.
And, again. Nobody in this thread needs to count for how many deaths america is responsible. That happens more than enough in the respective threads, me being one of them.
Jesus, why do people keep bringing up US and NATO? This thread isn't about that. Everyone is well aware of it. Everyone is well-aware that Ukraine is a contention of Russian and US/EU political interests, ie. Russia does not care about imaginary Nazis and US doesn't care about Ukraine's well-being. It's a rope in a tug-of-war. IMO, there is no need to continually bring up how much America has wrecked.
Why exactly are you quoting me?
Slight frustration that any thread on TL that has 0% to do with the US, ends up being about the US.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
If you are someone like China, Putin is a nice friend to distract the West with but what happens if tomorrow "Taiwan Self Defense Forces" in US/Japanese army uniforms shows up and then Taiwan referendum votes to join Japan/USA? Not a nice precedent. Lots of those countries have situations like that.
Thing is that you can't call someone as "allies" or "enemies" considering this.
On March 28 2014 05:37 Ghanburighan wrote:
On March 28 2014 05:20 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
On March 28 2014 05:14 Ghanburighan wrote: Now that the dust has settled:
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
Voting goes on the record... China definitely will not send an official message that it supports acts such as what happened in Crimea, even if it would like to go against the US and Europe. Those abstentions show that Russia's actions are too far from normality even for its allies.
And our ambassador said that big Western players pressured a lot of lesser countries hard to vote for resolution. Anyway, sad thing is that noone cares about those resolutions.
Actually, diplomatically, these matter a ton. And don't think Russia didn't pull out all the stops to get countries to vote and abstain as well. Armenia and Belarus were opposed to the Crimean action only a few weeks ago...
Ah yes! Quite the group: The communistic-leaning obligate US-contrarians in SM Am. Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba. The left-leaning leaders in those countries vote against USA for domestic populistic reasons. The sphere countries Belarus (100 % depending on Russia for trade and other support) and Syria (for obvious reasons). Some from the pariahs of the earth assembly in North Korea and Zimbabwe, most likely because they are too isolated from EU/US trade to risk worsening trade relations with Russia (EU countries have some missions in Eritreas extremely nasty al-shabab supporting regime and Turkmenistan is improving relations after Niyazovs dictatorial freak-show. Not that those places are significantly better than the parias...). Only other countries to support Russia are Armenia and Sudan I am surprised by the lack of Kazakhstan on that list, though I do not doubt Armenia has had a crisis of consience on this one. I think Russia has had more luck in getting countries to abstain since most inherently dislike the idea of their provinces being able to change nationality just like that.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
If you are someone like China, Putin is a nice friend to distract the West with but what happens if tomorrow "Taiwan Self Defense Forces" in US/Japanese army uniforms shows up and then Taiwan referendum votes to join Japan/USA? Not a nice precedent. Lots of those countries have situations like that.
Thing is that you can't call someone as "allies" or "enemies" considering this.
edit: Fun fact, Vene is an abbreviation for Venezuela, here. But in Estonian, Russia is translated as Vene.
There were 58 abstained countries. I still wonder what are you doing in UN if you don't vote and claim after it that you support one of sides.
Why can't they just vote? :D
Voting goes on the record... China definitely will not send an official message that it supports acts such as what happened in Crimea, even if it would like to go against the US and Europe. Those abstentions show that Russia's actions are too far from normality even for its allies.
And our ambassador said that big Western players pressured a lot of lesser countries hard to vote for resolution. Anyway, sad thing is that noone cares about those resolutions.
I'm afraid that the statements of Russian officials under Putin's regime really don't mean much here.
Yeah, a very predictable picture. I guess I'm surprised that Argentina and Egypt abstained from a yes vote, but that might be stretching it... Egypt might not even have sufficient capacity in its foreign office atm to keep track of these issues.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence, I can have the extremest view that "all tall people are evil violent people, who are stupid" that statement in itself isn't a call for violence against tall people and wouldn't be gagable in a public venue. But if i followed up by calling for people to kill all the tall people that would be a call for violence against them. And quite a few nations follow this, the idea that something is unpleasant isn't the same as something is violent, and the government specifically shouldn't be silencing it's people over what could be considered subjective.
In the US speech is protected even further, in the US you literally can write a book or make a speech saying we should kill all the tall people and as long as you aren't saying "do it right now" (and as long as a 'reasonable person' doesn't think you're trying to get all the tall people killed right now without directly saying it) you'll win your day in court. It will definitely go to court but you'd win in the US you have to be judged to have been inciting imminent violence for hate speech or violent speech to be bannable.
Do you even live on planet earth?
Im honestly surprised someone with internet use is making such an absurd comment. I dont know what planet you live on, but writing what your recommended in private emails which are not so private aka NSA will without a doubt get you arrested let alone making a speech or a book. Come back to planet Earth.
this legislation is aimed at silencing dissenting voices, especially bloggers. using the us as a shining example is idiotic. rich / powerful people can afford freedom of speech in it, but if you're a blogger / journy reporting on govt / coorp abuse you're shit out of luck. hence the juxtaposition of us' terrible free-press record against an entire issue of reason devoted to holocaust denial.
The idea that only rich and powerful people in the US can exercise free speech is absurd.
Just as an example, how long were Occupy camps allowed to illegally exist? Hardly a gathering of the rich and powerful despite many rich and powerful people sympathizing with them and getting involved. For months and months and months they were allowed to shit up public parks and the other places they were camping, harass and intimidate local businesses and residents, have their drum circles and mic checks.
The idea that if you are reporting on "corporate abuse" you are "shit out of luck" is absurd.
Just as an example, the movie Gasland is a piece of shit full of half-truths, distortions, deceptions, and outright lies, but it was still produced and distributed free of restriction.
How many articles about BP oil spill were not allowed to be published? How many journalists were harassed by the government for publishing articles about that?
Enron?
Any of the thousands of pieces of opinion and "reporting" published daily in newspapers and magazines and on blogs on message boards on Twitter, like your quite frankly libelous link, regarding the Koch brothers?
The idea that if you are a blogger you do not have free speech protections in the US is absurd. Dick Durbin's numerous idiotic comments on the subject aside, judges including at the federal level have ruled that bloggers have the same free speech protections as everyone else.
Now if you're a journalist reporting on the Obama Administration it is a different story. So you're only mostly ignorant and only mostly saying things that are stupidly untrue. It is a disgrace the way the Obama Administration has acted towards journalists. But again, no prior restraint attempts. Not even the Obama Administration has tried to force articles to not be published. Here's a quick list of stories the government desperately did not want reported over the last ten years I remember that it did not stop from being published:
2006 Warrantless eavesdropping (NYT) 2006 Terrorist Financing Tracking Program (NYT) 2010 Multiple stories resulting from Bradley Manning leaks (NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel, eventually almost every publication in the world concerned with politics and law) 2012-present Multiple stories resulting from Edward Snowden leaks (NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel, eventually almost every publication in the world concerned with politics and law)
Basically if you think free speech is failing in the US then you should want the Obama Administration out of power.
Now then I hope you two have been lifted somewhat out of your lamentable ignorance caused by your preconceptions and arrogance.
cherry picking anectodal evidence doesn't hold up to comprehensive study, sry.
On March 26 2014 23:56 Cheerio wrote: A telephone discussion between Tymoshenko and Nestor Shufrych (MP, Party of Regions, long-term Yanukovich ally, abandoned him after the latest events) has leaked out. Tymoshenko confirmed that most of the discussion was real, except for the part where 8 millions of Russians in Ukraine "should be killed with nuclear weapons", which was falsified she claimed.
The main point of the discussion is that Russian aggression has united many political opponents in Ukraine and there is strong hatred for Russia and Putin on all levels of Ukrainian society.
Yes it's an interesting point.
I heard a man on a french tv show yesterday, an historian and political expert about eastern Europe with the same kind of point of view.
He said that Putin's move on Crimea had a payback effect. He got Crimea and its harbors easily which is good for him (no NATO bases near Russia and full control of black sea), but he lost all the Urkaine in the same time by giving to Ukrainian people a good reason to unify against a common opponent : Russia and himself, breaking his own plan to keep a friendly slavic neiborhood with Bellarus + Ukraine.
Also, breaking Crimea out of Ukraine means a loss of many pro-Russian votes.
However, Russia may be counting on the fact that, given enough time, they will have the upper-hand with respect to interference in the Ukrainian political process.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence, I can have the extremest view that "all tall people are evil violent people, who are stupid" that statement in itself isn't a call for violence against tall people and wouldn't be gagable in a public venue. But if i followed up by calling for people to kill all the tall people that would be a call for violence against them. And quite a few nations follow this, the idea that something is unpleasant isn't the same as something is violent, and the government specifically shouldn't be silencing it's people over what could be considered subjective.
In the US speech is protected even further, in the US you literally can write a book or make a speech saying we should kill all the tall people and as long as you aren't saying "do it right now" (and as long as a 'reasonable person' doesn't think you're trying to get all the tall people killed right now without directly saying it) you'll win your day in court. It will definitely go to court but you'd win in the US you have to be judged to have been inciting imminent violence for hate speech or violent speech to be bannable.
Do you even live on planet earth?
Im honestly surprised someone with internet use is making such an absurd comment. I dont know what planet you live on, but writing what your recommended in private emails which are not so private aka NSA will without a doubt get you arrested let alone making a speech or a book. Come back to planet Earth.
I don't know what planet you live on but apparently it is one where you can mock people based on your own ignorance.
this legislation is aimed at silencing dissenting voices, especially bloggers. using the us as a shining example is idiotic. rich / powerful people can afford freedom of speech in it, but if you're a blogger / journy reporting on govt / coorp abuse you're shit out of luck. hence the juxtaposition of us' terrible free-press record against an entire issue of reason devoted to holocaust denial.
The idea that only rich and powerful people in the US can exercise free speech is absurd.
Just as an example, how long were Occupy camps allowed to illegally exist? Hardly a gathering of the rich and powerful despite many rich and powerful people sympathizing with them and getting involved. For months and months and months they were allowed to shit up public parks and the other places they were camping, harass and intimidate local businesses and residents, have their drum circles and mic checks.
The idea that if you are reporting on "corporate abuse" you are "shit out of luck" is absurd.
Just as an example, the movie Gasland is a piece of shit full of half-truths, distortions, deceptions, and outright lies, but it was still produced and distributed free of restriction.
How many articles about BP oil spill were not allowed to be published? How many journalists were harassed by the government for publishing articles about that?
Enron?
Any of the thousands of pieces of opinion and "reporting" published daily in newspapers and magazines and on blogs on message boards on Twitter, like your quite frankly libelous link, regarding the Koch brothers?
The idea that if you are a blogger you do not have free speech protections in the US is absurd. Dick Durbin's numerous idiotic comments on the subject aside, judges including at the federal level have ruled that bloggers have the same free speech protections as everyone else.
Now if you're a journalist reporting on the Obama Administration it is a different story. So you're only mostly ignorant and only mostly saying things that are stupidly untrue. It is a disgrace the way the Obama Administration has acted towards journalists. But again, no prior restraint attempts. Not even the Obama Administration has tried to force articles to not be published. Here's a quick list of stories the government desperately did not want reported over the last ten years I remember that it did not stop from being published:
2006 Warrantless eavesdropping (NYT) 2006 Terrorist Financing Tracking Program (NYT) 2010 Multiple stories resulting from Bradley Manning leaks (NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel, eventually almost every publication in the world concerned with politics and law) 2012-present Multiple stories resulting from Edward Snowden leaks (NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel, eventually almost every publication in the world concerned with politics and law)
Basically if you think free speech is failing in the US then you should want the Obama Administration out of power.
Now then I hope you two have been lifted somewhat out of your lamentable ignorance caused by your preconceptions and arrogance.
cherry picking anectodal evidence doesn't hold up to comprehensive study, sry.
Dismissing people sometimes is necessary I get that, but when you do it by ad-hominem, and you're even wrong about it; that's kinda scummy. His evidence is hardly "anectodal" when he provides links to credible sources which are not authored by himself.