Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

And speaking of Nazis:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32009360
Meanwhile in France:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...elections.html
But I think it is worth a remark (although Brenus might not like it):
The Telegraph rejoices in Le Pen's defeat, yet let's face the stark truth: the French gave 26% of votes for the Nazis - the second place and only 4% behind the winners. I wouldn't call it a defeat.
Now where is the threat of nazism coming from - Ukraine or France+Russia?

[Gilrandir]

Though as pointed out it isn't up to just him, there is an important cautionary tale here.

In 1969, everyone (in power) wanted the Vietnam War to end. However, Nixon and Kissinger escalated military activity and at various points rejected overtures for peace from the North Vietnamese.

Why? Because they wanted to negotiate from a more advantageous strategic position at the inevitable peace conference.

What happened? In 1973, both sides came to the table with basically the same cards as in 1969 - but with hundreds of thousands more in dead.

According to the dating in your tale we still have around a couple of years of the crisis ahead of us.

[Montmorency]

Juif, la France n'est pas a toi?

[Gilrandir]

Juif, la France n'est pas a toi?

Вибач, французькою не володію.

[Husar]

Lethal means "bringing/causing death". You can't bring more death - a human dies only once. You can speak of something causing more casualties.

You can bring more death, by killing two humans, I thought I made that clear.
They call someone the most lethal sniper because he is the sniper who killed the most humans, not because he killed one human more than all the other snipers killed one human. Therefore making a bomb more lethal means giving it the potential to kill more humans, for example by making it more accurate so that it won't land on the periphery of the intended target.

[Montmorency]

You can bring more death, by killing two humans, I thought I made that clear.
They call someone the most lethal sniper because he is the sniper who killed the most humans, not because he killed one human more than all the other snipers killed one human. Therefore making a bomb more lethal means giving it the potential to kill more humans, for example by making it more accurate so that it won't land on the periphery of the intended target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathmatch

consecutive kills: when a player kills a combatant within 5 seconds after a previous kill, a consecutive kill occurs. The timer starts ticking anew, allowing a third kill, a fourth kill etc. Alternatively, killing several enemies with a mega weapon (such as the Redeemer, which resembles a nuclear rocket) also counts as consecutive kill. The titles of these kills are: Double Kill (2), Multi kill (3), Ultra kill (4), Megakill (5), MONSTERKILL (6; 5 in the original Unreal Tournament). For comparison, id Software's "Quake III Arena" tracks double kills, but a third kill soon after results in another double kill award.

Killtacular, Killamanjaro, etc.

Like that?

[Husar]

Not entirely, but war can be more lethal:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...=3737864&uid=2

Ebola can become more lethal:
http://consumer.healthday.com/health...ds-695692.html

And even Al Qaeda can become more lethal:
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm...238&no_cache=1

None of those imply that people who get killed get *more* killed, it usually means that out of a certain group of targeted people, fewer survive if something or someone becomes more lethal. Indirectly that means if someone or something kills more people, it or she is more lethal, after all the "target group" can be defined as e.g. all people of a certain city, so the more cityzens a nuke can kill, the more lethal it is. Therefore making a nuclear bomb more accurate to make it more likely to hit the point of a city where it causes the most deaths makes it more lethal. Just like Britain's most lethal sniper is the one who killed the most insurgents where the insurgents are the target group. Being the most lethal sniper implies that he is more lethal than all other snipers and therefore more lethal in the sense of killing more people is a thing, q.e.d.

[Gilrandir]

Not entirely, but war can be more lethal:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...=3737864&uid=2

Ebola can become more lethal:
http://consumer.healthday.com/health...ds-695692.html

And even Al Qaeda can become more lethal:
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm...238&no_cache=1

None of those imply that people who get killed get *more* killed, it usually means that out of a certain group of targeted people, fewer survive if something or someone becomes more lethal. Indirectly that means if someone or something kills more people, it or she is more lethal, after all the "target group" can be defined as e.g. all people of a certain city, so the more cityzens a nuke can kill, the more lethal it is. Therefore making a nuclear bomb more accurate to make it more likely to hit the point of a city where it causes the most deaths makes it more lethal. Just like Britain's most lethal sniper is the one who killed the most insurgents where the insurgents are the target group. Being the most lethal sniper implies that he is more lethal than all other snipers and therefore more lethal in the sense of killing more people is a thing, q.e.d.

I repeat: it is called "causing more casualties".

[Husar]

I repeat: it is called "causing more casualties".

I repeat: I've shown six links that prove my point that it can also be called "more lethal", your opinion is inferior to mine.

[Montmorency]

?

There's more than one sense to "lethal being used by you two.

Relative lethality

1. For every person included in the AoF (area of effect) of some agent, item, force, etc. there is a greater likelihood of expiration of the affected organism than for other such.
1.a. The Ebola contagion is more lethal than allergic reactions in general.

Absolute lethality

2. The total number of organisms terminated in some specified range or domain is greater for one agent, item, or force than for another.
2.a. Allergic reactions are more lethal than the Ebola contagion.

Both are perfectly valid English usages; you just have to be clear about what you are referring to.

[Husar]

?

There's more than one sense to "lethal being used by you two.

Relative lethality

1. For every person included in the AoF (area of effect) of some agent, item, force, etc. there is a greater likelihood of expiration of the affected organism than for other such.
1.a. The Ebola contagion is more lethal than allergic reactions in general.

Absolute lethality

2. The total number of organisms terminated in some specified range or domain is greater for one agent, item, or force than for another.
2.a. Allergic reactions are more lethal than the Ebola contagion.

Both are perfectly valid English usages; you just have to be clear about what you are referring to.

Yes, apparently Gilrandir denies that you can say something is "more lethal", which you have done for both uses however.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest. Germans just believed they had to go to war. I'm surprised you can make the comparison and not see that, increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour, must like a Byzantine looked at a map and saw SQPR overlaid.

I think most Russians use Rodina, other than the Fatherland-all-Russia group (who admittedly DO support Putin). Aside from such quibbling, I think you have hit on an important point. Putin's regime does seem to be looking at maps with that SPQR background thought in mind and also seems to have the "our place in the sun" chip on their shoulder. The combination does not readily lend itself to peaceful conflict management.

[Brenus]

“Would it make you happier if they had?” ? Happier? We speak of politic and field reality. If the Ukrainian soldiers would have felt they were defending the mother land (or father land) they would have fought like lions, against all odds and with bravery. They didn’t because it wasn’t worth of it.

“But I think it is worth a remark (although Brenus might not like it):
The Telegraph rejoices in Le Pen's defeat, yet let's face the stark truth: the French gave 26% of votes for the Nazis - the second place and only 4% behind the winners. I wouldn't call it a defeat.
Now where is the threat of nazism coming from - Ukraine or France+Russia?” Once again you don’t understand.
Contrary to you I don’t dispute reality. There is a threat of Nazism/Fascism in France. But, again contrary to you, I don’t pretend they are not Nazi/Fascists. And until the French politicians carry-on the cheat and to do all the same policy, more people will go fishing during elections, except the most motivated, the opposition. Because the real winner is the no-vote camp (49.9 %), which is logical as it doesn’t matter what you vote, you’ve got EU policy, un-employment, poverty and austerity.
Democracy was killed in France when, against the national will shown in a Referendum, the so-called National Representatives voted the EU treaty. So, now, populations vote against the establishment (and Le Pen is supposed to be one) or just, as I do, don’t bother to go to vote when my candidate is not on the line.

[Strike For The South]

It is March 24th 2015 and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist
It is March 24th 2015 and Marine Le Pen is still a fascist

[CrossLOPER]

It is March 24th 2015 and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist
It is March 24th 2015 and Marine Le Pen is still a fascist

Someone please fill me in on the joke.

[Gilrandir]

Yes, apparently Gilrandir denies that you can say something is "more lethal", which you have done for both uses however.

Evidently, he word is polysemantic, so its different meanings possess different grammatical categories. One can't, for example, say: "His disease now is more lethal then the one he had last year", because if the previous was lethal, he should have died of it. However, those semantic disputes don't cancel what I was trying to prove, namely: if you know your neigbor has several guns, you will feel threatened anyway irrespective of the kind of any of them or your knowledge of any of them having been upgraded lately. Yet if you have been living with this awareness and insecurity for 40 years and the neighbor never fired any of them, I'm sure the feeling will have gotten numb. The only reason you may have a relapse of apprehensions is when your neighbor is "divorced from reality". But that applies to Putin, not to those in the west who upgrade their weapons.

“Would it make you happier if they had?” ? Happier? We speak of politic and field reality. If the Ukrainian soldiers would have felt they were defending the mother land (or father land) they would have fought like lions, against all odds and with bravery. They didn’t because it wasn’t worth of it.

Having been a military once you know perfectly well that soldiers do (or don't do) something not because they feel it is worth/not worth doing. They are taught to obey the order irrespective of what they feel. Or was it different in your case? Did you listen to your heart before you considered whether to obey the order or not?
More than once the officers from the blockaded military units in the Crimea demanded from their bosses in Kyiv a clear cut order. I'm sure those loyal to their oaths would obey it. But the order to shoot was never issued. There were reasons why not and I had given them.

“But I think it is worth a remark (although Brenus might not like it):
The Telegraph rejoices in Le Pen's defeat, yet let's face the stark truth: the French gave 26% of votes for the Nazis - the second place and only 4% behind the winners. I wouldn't call it a defeat.
Now where is the threat of nazism coming from - Ukraine or France+Russia?” Once again you don’t understand.
Contrary to you I don’t dispute reality. There is a threat of Nazism/Fascism in France.

Contrary to what you have said about disputing reality, this is the first time you openly admit the threat. In our previous debate you were trying hard to prove that the support of Le Pen (of both generations) was insignificant and only seemed so because of the peculiarities of counting votes and turn out percentage. You have finally owned up to it.

So, now, populations vote against the establishment (and Le Pen is supposed to be one) or just, as I do, don’t bother to go to vote when my candidate is not on the line.

That was a bad call. You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone. Well, people change as well as thier values.

It is March 24th 2015 and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist
It is March 24th 2015 and Marine Le Pen is still a fascist

I suggest calling them Vlamarine Le Putin.

[Gilrandir]

On how independent the separatists are:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/s...ette-1.2406228
Regretfully, it is in German, but when I open the article I have an option of translation. I posted the link of the translated article, yet it shows only the original. Perhaps others could find some way of doing it in English.

[Sarmatian]

Someone please fill me in on the joke.

Strike wrote two consecutive sentences without grammar or spelling mistakes.

It's more of an oddity than a joke, really.

[Husar]

Evidently, he word is polysemantic, so its different meanings possess different grammatical categories. One can't, for example, say: "His disease now is more lethal then the one he had last year", because if the previous was lethal, he should have died of it.

No, you can say that. He could have had the flu last year, which is a lethal disease, but he survived and now he has ebola, which is a more lethal disease concerning the chance that it may kill him. Lethal in this case refers to the potential of the disease killing you, a more lethal disease is more likely to kill you. Lethal does not necessarily mean that there is a 100% certainty that it kills you.

However, those semantic disputes don't cancel what I was trying to prove, namely: if you know your neigbor has several guns, you will feel threatened anyway irrespective of the kind of any of them or your knowledge of any of them having been upgraded lately. Yet if you have been living with this awareness and insecurity for 40 years and the neighbor never fired any of them, I'm sure the feeling will have gotten numb. The only reason you may have a relapse of apprehensions is when your neighbor is "divorced from reality". But that applies to Putin, not to those in the west who upgrade their weapons.

By upgrading the weapons your neighbor also states that he is still thinking about using them against you, so much so that he wants them to be able to kill you even more effectively (i.e. kill more people). It revives the hostility like watering a flower revives the flower.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Strike wrote two consecutive sentences without grammar or spelling mistakes.

It's more of an oddity than a joke, really.

Strike is scary good with the language when he isn't drowning himself in drink or quim.

[Brenus]

“There were reasons why not and I had given them.” In 1940, the Line Maginot soldiers were still fighting despite the betraying of Pétain and the Armistice signed with Germany. And, no, obeying orders in not the law. The law is to obey lawful orders… The only reason why no Ukrainian soldiers did resist was because they didn’t feel to defend their mother land.

“Having been a military once you know perfectly well that soldiers do (or don't do) something not because they feel it is worth/not worth doing” Absurd. You will sacrifice yourself as soldier not because you were ordered to. Watch Black Hawk Down, and tell me why the 2 Special Forces descended to what they knew was their death: because it was what they had to do. For the same reason that the French Imperial Guards couldn’t surrender after Waterloo, because it is what to do when you are a soldier. Rhaa, I even don’t know why I bother to try to explain…. “Honneur et Patrie” is on our flags…

“Contrary to what you have said about disputing reality, this is the first time you openly admit the threat. In our previous debate you were trying hard to prove that the support of Le Pen (of both generations) was insignificant and only seemed so because of the peculiarities of counting votes and turn out percentage. You have finally owned up to it.” Again you are not bothered by reality. The Le Pen family has no more votes. It is a constant figure in percentage of the voters/population. What is increasing is the number of no-vote, reason why the Le Pen danger is real. But again, you don’t really care of reality, so…

“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this? I stopped to vote after the EU treaty’s denial of democracy, long before I even join the Org… And by the way, abstention is a political stand, when no option is offered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Someone please fill me in on the joke.

We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective.

[Brenus]

"We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective." I think the Chilean would have adored to be able to vote for Pinochet and the Spanish for Franco...
It is how people forget what is fascism...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective." I think the Chilean would have adored to be able to vote for Pinochet and the Spanish for Franco...
It is how people forget what is fascism...

Hitler was elected, yes?

[Husar]

Hitler was elected, yes?

Not really:

https://democraticpeace.wordpress.co...s-not-elected/
http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did...emocratically/

Some would disagree:

http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2...cally-elected/

It turned out that there is yet another way to govern without a majority – in March 1933 the german parliament passed what is known as „Ermächtigungsgesetz“ (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich), a law that allowed the Nazi/Deutschnationale Coalition to govern without the consent of the parliament. That this was in fact an unconstitutional law is a mere technicality – it was passed with a vast majority that would have allowed to change the constitution in any case, so the parliament skipped a step[5].

So,since Hitler and the NSDAP had more votes than any other party during the Republic of Weimar and governed on the basis of a law that had been passed by the absolute majority of the parliament is seems reasonable to conclude that he was indeed democratically elected.

Now that is a nice claim, but he forgets to mention the detail that this "parliamentary vote" happened under the very, very strict hand of the SS or SA thugs who didn't even let all elected representatives into the building:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (English: "Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich"). This legislation was ostensibly passed at the Kroll Opera House, where the legislators were surrounded by, and threatened by, Nazi troops. The Communists had already been banned and were therefore not present and not able to vote, while several Social Democrats were kept away as well. In the end, nearly all the parties present voted for the act, with the Social Democrats being the only ones voting against.[1]

So you can claim that he was widely popular, but he wasn't really democratically elected unless you think it's democratic that one party hires a bunch of armed thugs who decide who gets to vote and how. A bit like what some say happened after the Maidan revolt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really:

https://democraticpeace.wordpress.co...s-not-elected/
http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did...emocratically/

Some would disagree:

http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2...cally-elected/



Now that is a nice claim, but he forgets to mention the detail that this "parliamentary vote" happened under the very, very strict hand of the SS or SA thugs who didn't even let all elected representatives into the building:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933



So you can claim that he was widely popular, but he wasn't really democratically elected unless you think it's democratic that one party hires a bunch of armed thugs who decide who gets to vote and how. A bit like what some say happened after the Maidan revolt.

A Website advocating the "Democratic Peace?"

Rome and Carthage called, they'd like to discuss the Punic Wars?

Hitler was elected, he just wasn't elected President, fact is it was internal German shenanigans that got him the Chancellorship, just like today.

You're absolutely right about the vote in the Crimean Parliament, though.

[Husar]

Hitler was elected, he just wasn't elected President, fact is it was internal German shenanigans that got him the Chancellorship, just like today.

Are you saying that the CDU has armed thugs who denied the MPs of some other parties entry and were positioned all around the Bundestag when Merkel was chosen as chancellor? If not, then your comparison of "internal German shenanigans" today and back then is slightly off.

And similar accusations arose in Kiev when the government had to vote after an armed mob had stormed the parliament and beaten up some pro-russian MPs and policemen. Crimea was different in that it (the entire land, not just the parliament) was effectively already occupied by Russia but yes, the vote also wasn't very free.

[CrossLOPER]

We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective.

Oh, so just more arrogance? Alright, well the word starts to lose meaning when you start to throw it around everywhere.

[Gilrandir]

No, you can say that. He could have had the flu last year, which is a lethal disease, but he survived and now he has ebola, which is a more lethal disease concerning the chance that it may kill him. Lethal in this case refers to the potential of the disease killing you, a more lethal disease is more likely to kill you. Lethal does not necessarily mean that there is a 100% certainty that it kills you.

Lethal is used both as of a potential disease and of the real one, so polysemanticism holds.

By upgrading the weapons your neighbor also states that he is still thinking about using them against you, so much so that he wants them to be able to kill you even more effectively (i.e. kill more people). It revives the hostility like watering a flower revives the flower.

If he hasn't done it for 50 years, and it is the same neighbor with the same mindset and attitudes, you are as safe as you have been during all these years.

So you can claim that he was widely popular, but he wasn't really democratically elected unless you think it's democratic that one party hires a bunch of armed thugs who decide who gets to vote and how. A bit like what some say happened after the Maidan revolt.

After the Maidan revolt Ukraine has had two universally recognized (except Russia, of course) democratic elections.

And similar accusations arose in Kiev when the government had to vote after an armed mob had stormed the parliament and beaten up some pro-russian MPs and policemen.

For the one so much in love with nuances of semantics and otherwise: the government didn't and doesn't VOTE on any crucial decisions (at least not in Ukraine). As an executive branch it EXECUTES whatever laws are voted in by the PARLIAMENT.

[Gilrandir]

The only reason why no Ukrainian soldiers did resist was because they didn’t feel to defend their mother land.

There was no ARMED resistance, but there was resistance of other kind. It was practised by those who still didn't wish to disobey the orders yet found other ways to resist. Google about minesweeper "Cherkasy", Yuly Mamchur, Sevastopol cadets and others who resisted in their own way.

The Le Pen family has no more votes. It is a constant figure in percentage of the voters/population. What is increasing is the number of no-vote, reason why the Le Pen danger is real.

Go on juggling figures and offering lame excuses. The fact is the fact: Le Pen has 26% of votes, whatever the reasons might be.

“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this?

Voila:
Post #2412 (Ukraine-in-a-thread)

“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…
The bold is mine, then goes your line. You may check it if you don't trust me.

You said you were a nazi fighter (do I have to find the proof of it in the same thread?) and now you praise abstention. Now we see how your democratic abstention is taking your nation to be ruled by nazis. Keep staying away and you will not recognize good merry France couple of elections later.