Ukraine Thread

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Husar]

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

And yet one can still say what you said one can't say.

For the one so much in love with nuances of semantics and otherwise

You started to attack my use of the word lethal and you were wrong and now you blame me? Bad move. And you're also wrong again:

In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organisation of a specific government.

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

Hitler didn't become Chancellor using thugs, he because a dictator using thugs, but my understanding is that he became chancellor do to the stupidity of the other german politicians and because of their attempts to position themselves for advantage. Modern Coalition Politics is basically the same, thouth possibly operates in better faith.

IIRC the Weimar Republic was quite flawed in some respects, but I do not remember the details. And when Hitler was appointed chancellor there was no public vote, it was the decision of one person, the president. If you think that is the same as being democratically elected, I'm sure I will never hear you complain about unelected EU officials if they are appointed by the people we elected. The NSDAP only won the elections after Hitler was appointed so he wasn't even elected as a majority party candidate or so.

And those accusations were somewhat fair, but at the same time the President had fled and forigen troops had occupied Ukrainian land, and even then we must acknowledge that the CURRENT Kiev government was elected in what were democratic elections, except that the Donbas refused/was prevented from participating.

Yes, and that was their (the Donbas') own fault, but given that they are likely to join Russia, they don't seem to care much. That the president had fled hardly eased the pressure on the parliament to do what the protesters wanted.

According to this timeline the new government was already in place before any land was occupied by foreign troops however:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A270PO20140308

The parliament changes on Feb 22 and the armed men seize the crimean parliament on Feb 27, clearly a reaction to the regime change and not vice versa.

As for Viking, my fault, they stormed some other government building but not the parliament itself apparently.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Hitler didn't become Chancellor using thugs, he because a dictator using thugs, but my understanding is that he became chancellor do to the stupidity of the other german politicians and because of their attempts to position themselves for advantage. Modern Coalition Politics is basically the same, thouth possibly operates in better faith.

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.

And those accusations were somewhat fair, but at the same time the President had fled and forigen troops had occupied Ukrainian land, and even then we must acknowledge that the CURRENT Kiev government was elected in what were democratic elections, except that the Donbas refused/was prevented from participating.

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

Pages were expended on why Putin is a Fascist - he's also the Classical definition of a Tyrant (someone who subverts the democratic institutions to maintain power.

[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.

[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.