Such wisdom. Westerners are on par with a power hungry dictator because we like our celebrity gossip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
I think I understand why Strike is so frustrated every time he chimes in.
Printable View
Such wisdom. Westerners are on par with a power hungry dictator because we like our celebrity gossip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
I think I understand why Strike is so frustrated every time he chimes in.
Alcohol?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Lack of damsels?
TELL US!?
Too soon? :creep:
Not directly. They are strictly "panem et circenses" stuff to distract the masses from asking/thinking about substantive issues. Of themselves, they are celebrities for being celebrities -- a highly profitable form of intellectual onanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Celebrities only distract those who wish to be distracted. Those are a lost cause anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Ridiculous!Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gerhard_SchröderQuote:
Originally Posted by Gerhard Schröder
You are referring to millions here, millions of fellow-citizens, as a "lost cause". One way or another, isn't that kind of troubling?Quote:
Celebrities only distract those who wish to be distracted. Those are a lost cause anyway.
The procedure of ratification (as you call it) was performed in accordance with all constitutional (legal) principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
As for replacing the PM (or other members of the cabinet) who will start to be involved into some corruption schemes, protesters are afraid that politicians will forget too soon what they have promised (as it was after the Orange revolution).
And if he is, you would raise hue and cry that it was illegitimate, illegal and didn't take into account the opinion of Russian-speakers of the South-east.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
You contribute to the blowing out. The head of the Crimean parliament declared that when Crimea joins Russia they will have two official languages - Russian and Tatar. Up till now (under the "neo-nazi rule" from Kyiv) they have three - Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar. Will we hear from you any lamentation on how the minority (which is second largest in Crimea) was deprived of their constitutional and lanuage rights and of the advent of a neo-nazi regime in Crimea? Or is it just another specific example that proves nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I can't fail to see that you consider the same faults worth condemnation if they are attributed to neo-nazis in Kiyv (like bullying the opponents) and not worth mentioning (like bullying the besieged Ukrainian soldiers and thier families in Crimea) if it is otherwise.
And finally. We seem to disagree on some (perhaps many) points, but in all my posts I NEVER called the arguments of the opponent quote bollocks unquote or proclaimed him childish for trying to defend his stance. If I lack understanding the main principles of democracy (as you claim), I still follow the main principles of politeness and respect to your opponent's opinion.
:bow:
“Try harder.” Viet-Nam, Cambodia, Granada, Nicaragua (let’s say Central and South America for Condor Operation), Cuba, Kosovo, Mexico and Canada (as you went to the 19th), Annexing of Hawaii, Iraq (can you remind me why?), Somalia and list is too long. Some with reasons, some with not.
It cannot be done until Ukraine acknowledges the departure of the Crimea officially. You can't claim the territory for your own and treat it like the enemy's. Russia will be the first to blame Ukraine for imposing a humanitarian disaster onto Russian-speakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
EU Parliament (13-DEC-2013) ” is concerned about the rise of nationalist sentiment in Ukraine, which led to support for the party "Svoboda", which is thus being one of the two new parties to make their entrance in the Verkhovnaz Rada; recalls that the opinion racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic are contrary to the values and fundamental principles of the European Union, and therefore to urge democratic parties represented in the Verkhovna Rada to not to associate with this party, or to approve or form coalition with the latter”
“Russia does not violate any law, whether international or another. According to the agreements signed with the Ukraine, the Federation is authorized to have a force of 25,000 men on the territory of Ukraine. Currently, even with the last movements of troops, Russian forces do not amount to more than 15,000 troops in Crimea. We are still far from the account. And the Ukraine may not participate of the EU or NATO; thus, neither the EU nor NATO are willing or permitted to intervene in Ukraine.” According to a French General (not really pro-Russian).
Just a note before to go to work.
" You can't claim the territory for your own and treat it like the enemy's." So start to speak to the Crimean (not you, but the new authorities). Listen and expel the 4 Nazi of your executive.
As far as I know (yet I may be wrong) the stipulated number is 12 000 (or is it 16 000?) but definitely less than 25 000. But the number does not matter greatly as there no Russian troops in the Crimea (as Putin claims).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The Crimean authorities (as well as Russia) don't want to. They don't consider Kyiv government legal (the same could be said the other way around, though) so it is a deadlock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I thought the number mentioned here was 5. And you can't expel anyone if the party is official. Calling names is not a ground for expelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I don't like Svoboda (as I said). But the West seems to be ready to deal with them and condone their presence in the bodies of power. At least at present. The American ambassador to Ukraine admitted the other day that "Svoboda has made a great progress" in terms of its stance and commended the party on that progress. This at least was the esssence of his speech, can't guarantee I gave it verbatim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Some of those are correct. Some are not. I would say that many 20th century "military excursions" would not fall under a perceived war by the public which gained majority public support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I don't respect anyone's opinion a priori. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, though and to say it out loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
This is a forum, people debate here. We challenge each other and learn new stuff. So far, thins I've learned from discussion with you:
1) You don't know history
2) You don't know how elections are monitored
3) You think you know more about elections frauds than relevant international organizations and monitors who are experts in that field
3) You don't know the difference between elected government and a coup
4) You like to contradict yourself, claiming that the government was set up by the protesters and by the parliament at the same time
And after all that you expect me to change my position and somehow I'm "rigid" because I don't subscribe to your opinion.
My opinion is very simple - when it comes to internal politics, you expelled a bad government and set up another, just as bad. In the end, you disregarded democratic principles for naught. As for foreign politics, you managed to prove that you're highly unstable and that it is useless to deal with you the normal way, thus giving Russia the reason and an excuse to do what it did.
So, it boils down to this - Can you fight of Russia? Yes/No? Can you ally with someone who can fight off Russia? Yes/No?
If you circled No both times, your solution is: Deal with Russia diplomatically! Standing in the corner, crying foul won't get you very far.
Since WWII countries have not been legally entitled to enter or occupy other lands to protect ethnic minorities of the home country. It is a Nazi excuse.
What is the real political situation in Ukraine, regarding Neo-Nazis etc? Who the :daisy: can tell! It is all filled with emotional appeal and propaganda.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26546083
http://www.stopfake.org/en/ (also in Ukrainian and Russian)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...d-into-account (western media bias)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A2C0KA20140313
The wise thing for Putin to do is to say the vote is for independence, and join Russia later, since the only two choices are to join now or later.
One thing for sure, whether the government has neo-Nazis in it, Russia is not making that better by going into Crimea or threatening force. That is a sure way to make it worse.
Ukrainians upset Putin’s plans for an economic union. This is his payback.
No the Interim government should not be pushing the country east or west. Let the people speak.
Wait for elections! But that is ever harder to do with Russia breathing down their necks.
Both the EU & Russia need to back off and give them time to catch their breath. But a country in crisis is ever so much easier to manipulate and carve up than one that is more stable.
Will wait and see what happens this weekend. There's a chance (albeit still quite slight) that by Tuesday we'll be in a state of an armed conflict with Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Quote:
If you circled No both times, your solution is: Deal with Russia diplomatically! Standing in the corner, crying foul won't get you very far.
I don’t think that is an option. From the sample ballot I looked at you check one or check the other. Yes and No is not an option. People opposed to the idea are simply not voting. That pretty much assures the outcome ahead of time. It is only a matter of becoming independent or joining Russia.
Also this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26543464
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...timchenko.html
Having different views than the government in Russia can cost you.
Apparently Gerhard Schöder criticized how the EU handled Ukraine and forced the country to choose between the EU and Russia instead of being allowed a more neutral position.
In return, some conservative and green MEPsare now trying to forbid him to talk on the issue. Is this type of censorship why we represent the free world?
Well, if wiki quote and my memory serve at all, he tends to put his foot in it. Recriminations within the EU about how they shouldn't have "forced" Ukraine to do something strengthen Putin position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Reality Check: Putin is an enemy of the West, he doesn't want war because war is expensive, but he opposes the West on a political and economic level. This is not because Putin is evil, it is because his goals are not compatible with Europe's.
When Rommey said that Russia was the US's no.1 one enemy, not "terrorists" this is what he meant.
In other news, Ukraine votes to form a "National Guard" it's unclear whether this is going to be a paramilitary force or a reserve.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26558288
That's not gonna happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I fully support Kage's suggestion, though - Putin vs. Obama free style. That's not fair, actually - Obama, Kerry and McCain vs. Putin.
That's what I thought about Russia stealing Crimea from Ukraine if you asked me 3 months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I think it is more complicated then that. Putin´s government is a bunch of corrupted autocrats and oligarchs, with common interest of retaining as much power as possible. Still perceiving Russia as general enemy of Europe is false. Russia or at least the most populous parts of Russia are Europe.Europe ends at Ural mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Both Russia and US are great powers and they have conflict of interests when it comes to foreign politics as both want to expand their sphere of influence, thus it is only natural that those spheres of interest collide and cause friction between each other. But generalizing Russia as default enemy of Europe is not true.
Russia and Europe are bond to each other mainly via trade. Russia provides natural resources and raw materials for European industry and trade between Russia and Europe is pivotal to both. For example for Finland, Russia is the greatest foreign trade partner followed closely by Sweden and Germany. While the trade with Sweden and Germany is more or less balanced. Russian trade is clearly biased towards Russia importing resources to Finland twice as much as Finland imports anything to Russia, thus we make money from Russian trade and it benefits us.
While we have had our fare share of problems with Russia, we simply cant overwrite Russia as our enemy and forget our geographical position. It does not mean that we have to bow down before Russia either, but it does not have to mean automatic hostility. Russia is simply not going anywhere from where it is located and we have to live with it. I think this sentiment is shared by all European nations that have more dealings with Russia and as one moves further West, more easy it is to take more hard line, as less effect it has to anything in those countries.
I stand by what I said - if you are a Western Democracy and you ascribe to that type of government and society, Putin is your political enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
You said, "Putin´s government is a bunch of corrupted autocrats and oligarchs, with common interest of retaining as much power as possible." which I agree with, and this is the type of government he want in Kiev - I doubt he sees it as corrupt, but you do and that means your worldview is not compatible with his.
So different values make one automatically enemies? Should we also stop dealing with all the other non democratic or corrupted countries as well? China? South East Asia? South America? Arabia? Africa?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Putin is not Russia, Putin is Putin. How does Putin differ from the Oligarch´s and Autocrats of government in Kiev? Why one is our enemy and one not, if their values are similar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I don’t mean to bust your bubble but it is only about the money and the power.
His moneyed interests are incompatible with our moneyed interests because they don’t want others to get, what they fell is, their cash.
A renewal of the cold war means a lot of cash for the arms industry on both sides.
Syria was about short term relief. This is about long term profits.
I'm sorry to say, but that's a highly simplified and naive view of international relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking