Ukraine Thread

**Husar** · 06-09-2015, 18:25

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

See the difference?

Yes, the difference is that one lies at first and comes out with the truth later and is quite upfront about it while others hide behind euphemisms for the word lie and try to do so ad infinitum. Neither of them do actually act very differently however.

Also a relevant link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath...b_2624620.html

Powell played an intercept of a conversation between Iraqi army officers about the UN inspections. However, when he translated what they were saying, he knowingly embellished it, turning it from evidence Iraq was complying with U.N. resolutions to evidence Iraq was violating them.

So trustworthy, it almost moves me to tears.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 06-09-2015, 22:11

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, the difference is that one lies at first and comes out with the truth later and is quite upfront about it while others hide behind euphemisms for the word lie and try to do so ad infinitum. Neither of them do actually act very differently however.

Also a relevant link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath...b_2624620.html

So trustworthy, it almost moves me to tears.

And we never stop talking about Iraq, do we?

Russians will only tell the truth when it benefits them, otherwise they will lie, Western politicians will avoid lying because if they get caught they'll probably have to resign their position. That means you can sift Western leaders' statements for something close to the truth, where you have to assume the Russians are lying.

The point about this is that Russian politicians will, therefore, assume the West is lying just as much as they are, so when the West says it wants to partner with Russia and has no interest in encircling and confining Russia the assumption is that that is a lie, the West wants something else.

Basically, whatever you tell Putin he assumes you're lying because he's lying, so he'll act on his perception of the situation and not what you tell him; this helps to explain why he invaded Ukraine. The West wanted Ukraine as a bridge to Russia, geographically and culturally (like the UK is a bridge between the US and Europe) and told Russia so. Russia concluded from this that the West wanted Ukraine to join NATO, therefore when a pro-Western government supplanted a pro-Russian one during the crisis last year this was seen as something engineered by Western leaders specifically to drive a wedge between Ukraine and Russia, despite everything the West had said.

So Putin ordered an invasion to counter what he was as NATO aggression.

**Husar** · 06-10-2015, 00:31

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

And we never stop talking about Iraq, do we?

If I bring up something older you will probably tell me that it's outdated again and the newest lies have not been exposed yet, so yeah, Iraq it is. I'm sorry that I cannot bring up any western lies you would enjoy reading about.

As for western leaders having to step down over lies, eh, first of all name one.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 06-10-2015, 02:54

Originally Posted by Husar

If I bring up something older you will probably tell me that it's outdated again and the newest lies have not been exposed yet, so yeah, Iraq it is. I'm sorry that I cannot bring up any western lies you would enjoy reading about.

As for western leaders having to step down over lies, eh, first of all name one.

Uh, not I meant we never stop talking about Iraq because we know they lied.

Both Bush and Blair have been made mud by it.

As to Western Leaders lying and resigning after being caught...

Watergate?

Also - every British politician who has resigned, ever?

**Gilrandir** · 06-10-2015, 15:49

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Again a lie" Complain to BBC.

When you doubt anything I post or link, it is all about bias, unrealiability and propaganda-mongering.
When your sources lie, it is just

Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi?

Originally Posted by Husar

As for western leaders having to step down over lies, eh, first of all name one.

B. Clinton almost did it. Almost. Well, many wanted him to.

Why am I not surprised?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b8_1433894594

**Husar** · 06-10-2015, 16:17

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Uh, not I meant we never stop talking about Iraq because we know they lied.

Both Bush and Blair have been made mud by it.

With no real consequence though, neither of them stepped down. Can you explain why Clinton was impeached over lying about Lewinsky and Bush wasn't over sending people into their deaths to kill loads of foreigners? What kind of high standard is it that we're talking about?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As to Western Leaders lying and resigning after being caught...

Watergate?

Also - every British politician who has resigned, ever?

Watergate was too long ago; and how many of them resigned after lying about issues on foreign politics?
A lot of it is about internal issues where hardly anyone actually got hurt (compared to a war) and that do not affect other countries.
It's not comparable to Putin lying to/about the enemy.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

B. Clinton almost did it. Almost. Well, many wanted him to.

Yes, as I said above, over an affair. The lie was less of a problem than the republican agenda to get rid of him for political reasons.
And it was still an internal problem. It is generally easier to accept a politician who lies to screw other nations than one who lies to you as a voter.