Well, he is a flawless democrat. He simply can't go against the will of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Printable View
Well, he is a flawless democrat. He simply can't go against the will of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
And so an Orthodox Slavic country A forcibly steals land from an Orthodox Slavic country B to avenge the injustice suffered by an Orthodox Slavic country C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Balance has been restored.
Funny how thousands of Russian troops make Russia popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
IRRC, Crimea voted with the rest of Ukraine for independence - regardless of what happened in 1954.
Perhaps they didn't want Yeltsin? Or they preferred for the new Russia to stabilize first before rejoining?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The funny thing is that back in 1991 the independence vote also was over 90%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So, Putin is the Chosen One? Or he's fallen to dark side and his son will eventually bring him back to the light side?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And what happens next? My guess is lot of hot air from West and nothing else. From here on Russia is going to wait for elections in Ukraine proper, now that it has shown that pro West government simply cant do business with Russia. Ukrainians will find out that the West is not going to do anything for them and that Russia will do what they wish unless they get more pro Russian government to Ukraine. The bigger kid has slapped the smaller in the sandbox, because the smaller one did not do as the bigger one wanted.
I will direct you to p.134.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
He's just a thief. He robs his people of their wealth, then robs other countries of their land in order to pacify his people. In the meantime, it'll be back to business as usual: stealing budget money allocated to the fresh "Crimea Project". That's many billions of dollars waiting to be apprehended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
At least Putin's cronies are lining their pockets. Beat the HOHO out of arranging traffic jams for political opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Police and army officials getting medals?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I think he means p. 134 (Forced Expulsions) within the document, not what Acrobat Reader assignsQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
And so the hot phase has begun...
Ok, skimmed through it all, I'm hardly gonna read 600+ pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Disregarding the fact that the report was written in 2001, and that many of the claims were proven incorrect in the following years, the factual errors, contradictions and bold conclusions of dubious quality, I do not disagree that there was the overall intention to encourage as much of the Albanian population as possible to leave Kosovo.
But, still the most important fact, is that it all happened after March 24th (as stipulated at least a few dozen times in the report), which means that NATO started the bombing to protect Albanians from non-existing ethnic cleansing.
Prior to that, NATO refused the call from Serbian Parliament for more international monitors and proposed NATO troops in Kosovo and NATO control of Kosovo. After that was about to be accepted, NATO added in the appendix to put entire FRY under NATO occupation. They were looking for an excuse and were constantly raising the bar until they have found an agreement unacceptable to Milosevic, probably assuming that they can destroy most the army in an air campaign and afterwards a mere threat of a ground invasion would allow them military occupation of the entire country. Ironically, after 78 days, hundreds of thousands of refugees, thousands of deaths and rapes, they settled for just control of Kosovo, which was basically accepted prior to the bombing.
Afterwards, when they had troops on the ground, they allow permanent ethnic cleansing to take place and refused to lift a finger to stop it. So, saying that it was a humanitarian intervention is quite ludicrous, and I'm not willing to place the blame for it all entirely on Milosevic, as much of a scumbag he was.
Yeah, damn those lying weasels of the Human Rights Watch, always trying to find ways to please their western masters!!!111
Did you just disregard the rest of my post? That's not nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Human Rights Watch still maintains that what happened in Kosovo was ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The NATO intervention was perfectly justified.
How can you justify an intervention with something that happened after the intervention? We started the intervention because we knew there was gonna be an ethnic cleansing if we start the intervention, and that totally justifies our intervention?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Is your argument that the Serbs only ethnically cleansed Kosovo because NATO bombed them...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
We're here because Serbia has problems. And Serbia's problems won't end for as long as we're here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
To be sincere.I don´t quite get why Russians started using force at Simferopol. What exactly the isolated Ukrainian garrison could have done? One has to wonder what was the Russian motivation for storming the base.
From Haaretz...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Frankly, I don't expect anything more than hand-wringing from the signatories, but the Ukranian regime is at least going thru the motions.Quote:
Yatseniuk said he had ordered Ukraine's defense minister to call a meeting with his counterparts from Britain, France, and Russia - signatories to a 1994 treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's borders to "prevent an escalation of the conflict".
According to 5080.no, Obama has frozen Putin's Linked-in account.
There's talk of freezing his netflix account if he doesn't back down.
No, it is my argument that while Milosevic and other hardliners would have liked a Serb-dominated Kosovo, they wouldn't dare to try and make it a reality for fear of repercussions, like the NATO bombing that was in the air (no pun intended). By starting the bombing for something that hadn't happen, NATO removed all incentives for it not to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If I'm being unclear, I'll try to illustrate it with a rather crude example - Guy A hates Guy B and wants to kill him, but doesn't do it for fear of going to jail. Even though Guy B is unharmed, the judge places Guy A in jail for killing Guy B. Guy A doesn't have anything more to lose, so he can attack Guy B.
“The Serbs started to ethnically cleanse Kosovo” For reference, the term “ethnic cleansing” was invented by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art complaining about what happed to the Serbs under the Albanian Local (and autonomous) Administration of Kosovo i Methojia.
It was a reference to Tito’s politic that forbade the return of the Serbs kicked out of Kosovo by the Bulgarians, Italians/Albanian Occupying Authorities during the WW2.
It was first the Communist Regime (Milosevic himself) who attacked this Memorandum being against the Yugoslav Ideal.
So, apparently the Serbs didn’t start the Ethnic Cleansing, but the Yugoslav Regime, which is not really surprising if you considered how Tito made the Republic’s borders, dividing very carefully in order to rule.
You have to notice that the Memorandum was absolutely ignored when it was published, even more than the Islamic Declaration of Izetbegovic.
I worked in Kosovo before the bombing and the situation wasn’t nice for the Albanians, basically the same than in Macedonia, but much better than the Turkish Minorities in Bulgaria or the Roma.
“A specific example that proves nothing?” Nope. Because one Ukrainian rabbis, Moshe Reuven Asman, has urged the Jews to leave the capital Kiev following anti-Semitic aggression. He even closed the Jewish schools (22-Feb-2014). To have Jews in a Coucil is a good old tactic employed by Nazi in the past.
“And what was Milosevic and his cronies charged with, if I may ask...?” About Kosovo, nothing:
“genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects.”
And as Milosevic conveniently died in custody, this will be never really elucidated.
And note that could charges against NATO or/and KLA as well, but it is not, is it?
What was proved by the way? Today at the Crown we had some charged who walked free as he was not guilty…
But I understand you approve the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs in Slovenia, Croatia, Kosovo and Bosnia as you never mentioned them.
“Human Rights Watch still maintains that what happened in Kosovo was ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbs.” Which prove how reliable they are.
To me, that sounds like a perfectly justified bombing campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I can't see how it was anything other than a matter of time. Good riddance.
Of course now the question will be how many days after the independence vote will Scotland ask to join Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Really? That's a very weird position...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Tell me, if there's a danger of things escalating in an unnamed hotspot in the world and there are two options:
A) Place peacekeeping force in control of the hotspot, to which all sides have agreed and that would ensure no violence will happen
B) Attack one side, even though it will surely escalate the conflict and cause massive suffering on all sides
Are you really telling me you would choose option B?
How was A ever a realistic possibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Milosevic wanted a Serbian Kosovo. Such people should be removed. The Serbians didn't do it, and so we were left with the bombs. Had the Serbs been a little smarter, none of it would have happened.
The fault for Kosovo lies with Serbia, and Serbia alone.
"The fault for Kosovo lies with Serbia, and Serbia alone.":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:......~:mecry:
Did you not read the previous posts? NATO troops in Kosovo was practically accepted in Rambouillet. The day it was supposed to be accepted, NATO withdrew the offer and changed it, asking instead of NATO troops in Kosovo -> NATO troops in the entire country. A) was not just a realistic possibility but accepted basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Here's a link for you.
NATO occupation of Kosovo would mean a de facto separation of Kosovo from Serbia. I can see Milosevic using that as a ploy, but I can't see him actually going through with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
....And do you remember who it was that objected to the use of a source because it was written in 2001? ~;)
Yeah, NATO stood behind the Serbs poking them with sticks to make them push the Albanians faster onto the trains....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Actually, no. Milosevic understood that NATO wasn't joking and was basically looking for an excuse the entire time. We now know Racak was staged, he knew that back then and NATO knew it back then. He knew he couldn't fight of NATO, by that time everyone knew Russia would object just officially, even less than the West did with Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
He had no choice. It was either accept the loss of Kosovo or have a war and be forced to accept it. The appendix, to include NATO control of entire country, was introduced the last day of the negotiations. I remember watching in a documentary later, it was someone high up in American or NATO administration, the name escapes me now, was meeting head of Serbian delegation in a bar that last evening - Milosevic, in a last effort to prevent the bombing asked that Serbia be admitted in NATO, in addition to everything else.
NATO needed an excuse for the bombing. That's why we've heard of "hundreds of thousands of dead Albanians", "mass murders on football stadiums", "Racak massacre".
I didn't object, I pointed out the obvious flaws in it, but agreed with the general assessment. If I rejected it, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you.Quote:
....And do you remember who it was that objected to the use of a source because it was written in 2001? ~;)
I have a hard time believing this was a conclusion he could make so easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
This is a kind of conclusion even sane, rational people rarely come to. And Milosevic was far from sane and rational...
I have no objections to NATO pushing hard, as it can be reasonably assumed that their end goal was to remove Milosevic from power(a goal I whole-heartily agree with).
You don't need to be very sane and rational when you're potentially against someone whose military budget is hundreds of times bigger than your GDP. There was no need for higher brain functions at all. NATO delegation later said on camera that there was no ambiguity - it was clearly said that NATO would bomb Serbia if an agreement wasn't made.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In fact, if you want a more detailed, step-by-step retrospective. First deal offered included NATO troops in Kosovo, but no mention of the referendum. Serbian side has some minor issues but likes it, Albanian refuses it outright, to the general bewilderment of all diplomats who expected that Serbian side wouldn't be so eager to agree. Albright comes to Rambouillet herself to persuade Thaci to sign it, with the words "if you sign this we can bomb the Serbs" (her words on camera). He refuses. The wording is than changed to include mention that the "status of the province" will be decided later, but again no mention of a definitive referendum. Now Serbian side doesn't like it but is willing to swallow it, Albanian side still refuses to sign anything that doesn't include a specific mention of a referendum for independence within 3 years. The negotiations are nearing an end and is increasingly starting to look that Serbian side will sign while Albanian won't. On the last day, Appendix B was added, that states in practical terms occupation of entire Serbia and Montenegro by NATO troops. Serbian side refuses.
I'm quite surprised that you're willing to ignore the facts, defend some weird logical leaps and question the sanity of a man in an effort to justify NATO actions.
It has been shown over and over again that leaders will happily meet their doom in a military defeat rather than give up land. I don't see why Milosevic would be a coward in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I believe NATO's goal was to 1) remove Milosevic from power and 2) separate Kosovo from Serbia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I fully support both goals.
The parallels continue....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki on German invasion of CS in 1939
Im not so easily drawn into those parallels. Why run down the garrison, when all you need to do is cut off the power and water and they will surrender soon enough without any effort? I think i will sit on this for a bit before i make any judgement calls upon it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Again I'm amazed with the lengths you go to justify aggression. Why didn't Georgia fight Russia to the end but accepted status quo? Why didn't Tibet fight China? Are you honestly trying to tell me you can't remember examples of a smaller, weaker country acquiescing to the pressure of a much stronger one? Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In the end, it's useless. I don't know what to tell you anymore. This happened in 1999, not the middle ages. You can find the newspapers, the detailed accounts of Rambouillet negotiations, videos of politicians, OSCE and UN reports. If you choose to ignore it all so that no one can shatter your illusion of a benevolent NATO, that's up to you.
And it didn't achieve the first and had to break the peace deal it signed in Kumanovo to achieve the second. Why aren't you supporting Russian acquisition of Crimea again?Quote:
I believe NATO's goal was to 1) remove Milosevic from power and 2) separate Kosovo from Serbia.
I fully support both goals.
While you're waiting you might consider taking accelerated course of Russian 101. It might come in very handy very soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Milosevic is gone: check. Kosovo separated from Serbia: check. I'm happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I'm an internationalist socialist. Terms like "borders", "territorial integrity", "sovereignty" and such are meaningless to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I don't oppose Crimea rejoining Russia. What I oppose is that Russia wants Crimea to rejoin. And that thug in charge in Crimea, hang him.
I support the thugs in Kiev, they only shot at the police. I see little wrong with that.
Hmmm...According to latest news one Ukrainian service man and one "self defense forces" member were in fact killed by a third party sniper who has been now detained. Interesting... And dont worry i know few words of Russian rvg.~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Awesome! You must be a part of some early warning/intelligence gathering unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
"Kosovo separated from Serbia: check." Re-calibrate your checker, faulty somewhere...
"I believe NATO's goal was to 1) remove Milosevic from power and 2) separate Kosovo from Serbia." and "Terms like "borders", "territorial integrity", "sovereignty" and such are meaningless to me". Err, contradiction... I am not against contradictions mind you...
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I always thought the goal was to distract the news away from Bill Clinton getting oral from his intern. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Is that the sound of a dog wagging its tail I hear?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
It is a honest mistake when regional accents distort the oval office. He thought he was exercising his presidential privileges.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Oh - so we should have bombed you earlier and harder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Because, in your example they either needed a better cell, or a hangman.
Ah the dominoes keep racking up now Transnistria is next
this is where he will go to far in my viewQuote:
Pro-Russian politicians and activists in Moldova's breakaway Trans-Dniester region have asked the Russian parliament to draft a law that would allow their territory to join Russia.
The Trans-Dniestrian appeal comes as Moscow moves towards absorbing Crimea into the Russian Federation. Ukraine, the EU and US say that move is illegal.
Russian loyalists dominate Trans-Dniester, with support from Moscow.
The region split from Moldova in a war in 1991-92, as the USSR was collapsing.
Moldova's President Nicolae Timofti said in a news briefing on Tuesday that any decision by Moscow to accept Trans-Dniester "would be a step in the wrong direction".Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
No! There will be peace in our time!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
tell that to the fellas voting in referendums who arent even in transnistria
Peace! Peace!!! Just need to bury the head in the sand a little deeper and all is well again!Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Well, there are significant Russophone populations in most of the old Soviet satellite states. A common cleavage in these states in one down pro/anti-Russia lines. Maybe it was naive to assume that they would forge entirely independent paths form Russia - the collapse of the USSR was only around 20 years ago after all.
And can we please stop the Hitler comparisons it is ridiculous and fails on countless levels.
Not gonna happen, Rhyf'. This thread is over 1300 posts -- at that point Godwining becomes a requirement, even in the mafia threads. You don't want the .org to lose its license do you?
I'm just trying to explain that something that happened after an action can not be justification for that action. If I punch you in the face, can I justify my actions by saying that you punched me back afterwards? In the same line of thoughts, Milosevic's actions are justified by the fact than a few months later, Albanians performed an ethnic cleansing of non-Albanians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hocQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I am, too. I don't care much for the borders. I'm angry that that NATO did everything it could to get the justification for aggression, from stagings of massacres and feeding false information to the public and the press, to removing a perfectly acceptable offer and purposefully making an offer that couldn't be accepted. Are you noticing a pattern (Iraq, Crimea...)?Quote:
I'm an internationalist socialist. Terms like "borders", "territorial integrity", "sovereignty" and such are meaningless to me.
I don't oppose Crimea rejoining Russia. What I oppose is that Russia wants Crimea to rejoin. And that thug in charge in Crimea, hang him.
I support the thugs in Kiev, they only shot at the police. I see little wrong with that.
According to the women who was in charge of a field hospital for the protesters and is a candidate for a health minister, they shot at other protesters, too. Funny how that's also acceptable to you.
“Oh - so we should have bombed you earlier and harder?” In fact, if you wanted to bomb to stop a war, yes. Now, when you see the result of this “peace” that is just a war in waiting (or ethnic cleansing)…
“There aren't very many good modern comparisons for this”: Kosovo. Around what, 10 years ago?
“How so?”: "Kosovo separated from Serbia”. You support the creation of new border (and States). As an internationalist, it is not really great. Well, I supposed you are still against an Independent Serbian Republic in Bosnia. So, it is more about being against the Serbs than a real political point of view I suppose. But it is a supposition and perhaps you will tell I assume wrongly.
She was considered a candidate but she withdrew saying that corruption schemes were still there so she saw no point in stepping in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
While Ukrainian army officials gave the name and the rank of the killed and wounded Crimeans never did that. I strongly doubt there was one on the Crimean side. At first they claimed that only self-defenders were hurt, only then they conceded Ukrainian casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
"She was considered a candidate but she withdrew saying that corruption schemes were still there so she saw no point in stepping in." So, your point is?
Meh. I support turning all European countries into tiny bits, united under a strong central government in Brussels... So, slice up all the big states and get all of them into the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Who says it is? If the current crop of thugs don't end their thuggery, we'll just have to wait until a new batch of thugs comes along to act all thuggish and remove the current thugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
No point. Just clarification. Frankly, for me she is the person I would support for any state vacancy (including presidency).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
And at the same time, have 50 millions Ukrainians live under thugs after thugs after thugs after thugs... That's no better than living under one thug. It's probably even worse because thugs removing thugs involves violence, periods of lawlessness, a drop in living standards, quality of medical care and education, radicalization of the population, more chance for extreme ideologies to get to power...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You know why Milosevic was voted out? Not because of the bombing but because west, most notably Germany and USA put pressure on all the various opposition parties to unite, gave them funding and organized them, along with several other opposition movements. 19 different parties (all of different ideologies) united to form a common front against him.
Elections weren't scheduled for another two years, but Milosevic pushed for elections to gain another term, after NATO gave him an excuse to present himself as patriot and defender of the country in the face of aggression instead of a thug.
That could have been achieved, even easier without the bombing. So, unless you're a trigger-happy idiot, there's no excuse for that kind of needless aggression.
...And this is different from Yanukovich how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
What you're suggesting is that stability is preferable to moving towards democracy. A tough dictator to keep order.
I don't buy that.
No, I'm suggesting that unless you can be reasonably sure that removing a dictator moves you toward democracy, other options should be considered. There are different types of dictators. Tito and Paul Pot aren't even similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
So, unless you know what you're doing, removing a Tito is just as likely to give you a Paul Pot instead of a democracy. Do I need to mention Iran?
In the case of Ukraine, which had a barely functioning democracy, no matter how corrupt it was, I believe elections were a better choice than violence on the streets.
I'm not into apologizing for dictators. Whack 'em all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
When people are brought to the boiling point it is hardly possible to reason with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Keep shooting dictators, eventually you have to get democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I actually supported the US aim of toppling Saddam. If only they had been clear on that and dropped the WMD nonsense as well as creating a proper plan for the invasion and occupation(or at least a plan!), I would have been a supporter of the invasion....Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The USA didn't annex Iraq for many reasons, none of which are because of the morality of the guys in charge.
1 - annexing Iraq would be a stupendous act of international politics suicide. After all, uncle Sam's justification usually involves worn out cliches like "democracy" "liberty" and "freedom", none of which could be plastered over Fox news and CNN if you actually annexed a foreign nation.
2 - trying to keep Iraq annexed would send a steady stream of body bags and flags back to the soccer moms of the middle class. See, while they can be brainwashed into believing the war on terror, when their kids start dying en masse your government will get a new wave of hippies, protesters and other such things.
3 - no point in annexing when you can install a puppet regime enforced by your benevolent "allies" from Israel
4 - no point in annexing when chevron and shell are already leeching iraqi oil and it's sold in USD and not EUR
So let's not pretend the USA has any moral high ground here.
Is "eventually" definable? How many years, deaths, rapes, suffering... are there in "eventually"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
"Eventually", every democracy will become a dictatorship and every dictatorship will become a democracy without shooting anyone...
For democracy to succeed, certain conditions need to be met. If those conditions aren't met, forcibly implementing democracy means it will revert back to dictatorship, just with more violence in the meantime.
EDIT: And that is all assuming that the actual goal of toppling a dictator is internal change, rather than a change in foreign policy.
Serbia seems to be doing better now than it was under Milosevic, no? I hear that you have a wealthy young reformer as the deputy PM and running for leadership. He is extremely ugly, but I support many of the policies that he has in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Long story short, the chaos of freedom is preferable to the stasis if totalitarian despotism. For as long as my country has a military, I will support the clandestine undermining of dictators and the insurgency that it causes - followed by, if necessary - military assistance in eliminating the despot and his political classes. I don't believe in doing this for economic reasons (although that seems to be the rationale that our political leaders and power brokers need). I support legitimate freedom movements because people who want to break free from bad laws and awful governments are my brothers in arms. Like Virginia supported Massachusetts in the American Revolution, I support my fellow human beings anywhere that they are fighting to break the chains.
Serbia met, for the most part, the preconditions for democracy, and would have probably made the transition sooner were it not for the surge in nationalism brought by internal crisis and problems that have been swept under the rug. Support for far right parties peaked at almost 20% back then, now it's at much more healthy level of 2-3%. We're not really that much better off now than we were in 1998. It is the general feeling that in October, 2000, we removed one corrupt bastard and installed 19 corrupt bastards instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Considering the young reformer, we'll have to wait and see. Anywaym he isn't a deputy anymore. Serbian parliamentary elections were held this Sunday but Crimean referendum overshadowed that. He got unprecedented support, 158 out of 250 seats. I'm not holding my breath, though.
I agree that the chaos of transitioning from a totalitarian regime to freedom is acceptable. I do not agree that chaos from transitioning from one totalitarian regime to another is acceptable.Quote:
Long story short, the chaos of freedom is preferable to the stasis if totalitarian despotism. For as long as my country has a military, I will support the clandestine undermining of dictators and the insurgency that it causes - followed by, if necessary - military assistance in eliminating the despot and his political classes. I don't believe in doing this for economic reasons (although that seems to be the rationale that our political leaders and power brokers need). I support legitimate freedom movements because people who want to break free from bad laws and awful governments are my brothers in arms. Like Virginia supported Massachusetts in the American Revolution, I support my fellow human beings anywhere that they are fighting to break the chains.
What was achieved in Iran? Expelling the shah, installing Ayatollah... In Afghanistan - removing communists, installing Talibans... In Egypt and other places?
Good points. Transitions that take us from the Shah to the Ayatollah are arguably more of a tragedy than the status quo. Arguably, because fear of consequence can throw you off making the changes needed to see best effect. Either way, the best way to protect against a negative outcome is to become involved, because you know that powerful enemy interests wound have no reluctance to involve their own agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The US didn't annex Iraq because the US doesn't do that sort of thing - for all its faults, the US is not a country which likes to directly rule others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Putin on the other hand - well "Glory to Russia" as he said.
Depends on how quickly you reload.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
That may sound flippant, but it's true. The problem with Western policy is a lack of consistency - we should ONLY support democrats and we should CONSISTENTLY support democratic revolutions. That does not mean we should attack every dictator, but as soon as he starts waging war against his own people and that generates an uprising we should support it on the understanding that we expect them to form a better government.
We did well in Libya, then lost credibility when we failed to support the Syrian revolution - a policy which looks even more idiotic after Putin's invasion of Crimea.
Had we supported the Syrian rebels a couple of years ago there might be a better situation in that country, rather than a new Somalia.
To return to Kosovo - Serbs were always going to start killing ethnic Albanians, it was just a question of when. At the very least, the interventions got the mess over and done with.
Balkanization as the tool for effecting OEG. Wowzers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
HT, I have got to hand it to you, you are the most unabashedly "big government" guys I interact with -- but you stick to your principles pretty well.
Afghanistan is also half a planet away from the US, it would be much harder to incorporate. Crimea has Russian history, Russian culture, Russian almost everything. It's apples and oranges. The US annexed a lot of territories from the British, the Indians and the Mexicans however, because those were nearby and "strategically important" at the time. Afghanistan and Iraq are none of that and having a friendly guy in power and several contracts for economic cooperation etc. is far preferable. Often they can also keep a military base in such friendly countries, which is one of the major issues islamic terrorists used to form around in the first place IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
One world government, not one european government.... NWO for the win!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Nationstates belong to the past. They make little sense nowadays in my opinion.