Ukraine/Crimea

Robert said:
Well, if you're going start throwing claims of hypocrisy around it's probably worth pointing out a couple of things:

1. I don't support Russian troops entering Crimea.

2. You were recently advocating an invasion of Syria.
Click to expand...
First of, I wasn't advocating an INVASION of Syria. I might have been accused that by people who see things in black and white. My position on Syria was simply to remove Assad's main advantages that allow him to rule despite his obvious minority support. Taking out Assad's air power alone could have done that and for that no land invasion is required. Second, Syria isn't really analogous to Iraq because Syria is already at war and thus doing nothing at all is what allows the bloodshed to continue. If we took out Assad's air force 6 months ago the fighting may have been over today, or if not today, might have been coming to a close. But we see that the fighting is continuing and no side is close to winning and people are suffering and will continue to do so indefinitely. Iraq was the opposite situation, where doing nothing was the right thing to do, but you can't tell me that doing nothing is always the right thing to do.

And no, I wasn't implying that YOU support the Russian incursion. Most of my vitriol is directed at those doing their best to fog up the situation to their own advantage. I know you're not one of them.
 
Sorry, but I couldn't resist...

386cf56a-e927-459f-907e-1dcdb6cba1ae.jpg
 
Robert said:
Nor is Crimea.
Click to expand...
Yes, I totally agree, but wouldn't one need to find similarities between Iraq and Crimea before one can pronounce someone hypocritical?
 
Glaucus said:
Yes, I totally agree, but wouldn't one need to find similarities between Iraq and Crimea before one can pronounce someone hypocritical?
Click to expand...


Perhaps but it didn't stop you:

Glaucus said: ↑
But you and I both opposed the Iraq invasion. I think it's equally hypocritical to not oppose this invasion.​
 
Glaucus said:
I kinda saw this coming: Exclusive: RT Anchor Liz Wahl Explains Why She Quit


Really, RT.com censored the truth? Wow, that's a shock! Btw Fluffy, have you sent in your resume?

Finally, Putin's web of lies are starting to unwind.
Click to expand...

No, but let's not be too self righteous. We know the US networks do this too. So does Murdoch. If you don't follow the company line on what is truth, you don't need to work there any more. The allowable truth in North America falls into a very narrow range thee days especially under Harper (though Harper is more a symptom of the assimilation than the cause). When Fox reporters quit because their reports were being suppressed or tampered with we heard very little about it.

We live in a world obscured by darkness and we can only see what the torch bearers cast their light upon. You need to walk with other torch bearers so you can see more.

We do not have clean hands in all of this. We are not honourable and upstanding custodians of righteousness. Before we overthrew Saddan we funded him. Before we overthrew Ghaddafi we gave over to him for some rough treatment a bunch of Muslim radicals that had been working to overthrow him for a couple of decades. The US handed over Arar to be tortured into confessing to being a member of Al-Qaeda in Syria. You do favours for the US and they kick you in the nuts anyway. Russia has been allowing safe transit of US military supplies through it's territory and into the North of Afghanistan for over a decade. In gratitude the US has placed NATO bases and missiles into an array of ex-Warsaw pact countries the US promised Russia it wouldn't expand NATO into. The US has been fiddling elections and buying politicians in all these old states (and it's not like the Russians wouldn't do it because they used to, but the US has all the wealth and power these days. They buy other people's politicians just like they buy their own - to make sure they have politicians that agree with the rulers of the US).

There are real divisions in Ukraine (with Crimea being a significant one which only joined Ukraine recently but was Russian for more than a hundred years before that). But Canada has divisions too. More than half the people would like to see the Harper govt pushed out - but Harper will continue to side with the Americans because they can maintain his government. Quebec remains close to 50-50 on separation. If some country decided to spend 5 billion dollars on hardening the division and stirring activists we could be in the same shape as Ukraine pretty quickly. What we probably lack is a largish disaffected block of ambitious radicals that could be elevated to form a quisling government.
 
When Kerry warned Russia not to interfere in Ukraine he did so from Kiev. Could that be seen as anything other than a suicide attack on American credibility?
America was interfering in Ukraine all along.
 
Glaucus said:
China distanced themselves from this incursion but that's not really a surprise nor does it really matter much.
Click to expand...
China is still basically in agreement with Russia. It's likely that a lot of China's interest in Ukraine is economic, however, so they can likely be bought off. If someone steps up to ship them an awful lot of grain (their own or Ukraine's) so they don't have to worry about bread riots and the destabilizing that hunger brings, well, they'll likely take a deal.

It's quite clear that for Putin's plan to succeed he'll need the full support from all his useful idiots. But let's face it, there just aren't enough idiots for that.
Click to expand...
Yes, sometimes when you're winning it's good to clinch the argument with a gratuitous insult.
 
Glaucus said:
Y
However, one must keep in mind that Obama isn't the one that actually ordered the invasion of Iraq. And in fact, if I remember correctly, Obama opposed the invasion before it actually happened.
Click to expand...
Yes, he opposed it on the grounds that it was a "dumb war". He apparently had no moral qualms about it, just thought it failed the cost/benefit analysis.
But you and I both opposed the Iraq invasion. I think it's equally hypocritical to not oppose this invasion. I still think the Iraq invasion was a disaster and I also believe that it lead the way to what happened in the Crimea this week.
Click to expand...

The Iraq war was clearly illegal and has been recognized as such by many international experts including experts in the US and UK.
The Russian presence in Crimea has been referred to as "questionably legal" and "quasi-illegal" and "probably illegal" and there's a reason for that. They can't outright say it's illegal because Russia has an existing agreement with Ukraine and Crimea that it can have up to 25,000 troops in Crimea. Crimea has been Russian territory since the 18th century but was became autonomous after the fall of the Soviet Union. It joined Ukraine later but has always fought to be autonomous. In 1997 they gained further autonomy and signed a cooperation agreement with Russia and hosted the Black Sea Fleet.

Now, obviously, troops aren't generally supposed to leave their bases and "secure" other people's things generally, though the Crimean government was pretty much in favour. You can argue that the Crimean government is owned by Russia, but owner ship of the Ukrainian government is just what the US backed coup was supposed to hand over to us.

If we are to respect the will of the Ukrainian people who did not vote for their current government nor it's current policies but could have next year if the EU had not laid down the ultimatum to chose a side then surely we can respect the will of the Crimean people who will actually be getting a referendum to vote in.

There are many games going on here but by any measure, Russians historical relationship and agreements with Crimea give it a far stronger claim on re-annexing that territory than any claim the US had in conquering Iraq or Libya. And the people of Crimea are far more likely to throw flowers at the Russians than the Iraqis were to the Americans. I'm not going to say they're GOING to throw flowers, but they will be much more accepting of Russians on the territory which about 60% of the population regards as being Russian anyway.
 
Glaucus said:
First of, I wasn't advocating an INVASION of Syria.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but agreeing to the US demands for a no-fly zone (and other "necessary" actions) is tantamount to consenting to an invasion or at least military conquest. In Iraq we saw that "no-fly" zone simply meant a place where only NATO jets can fly and attack anything on the ground they feel like which included sheep farmers, taxis and Iraqi troops trying to ferret out the MEK camps in the North. In Libya we saw that a "no-fly" zone means a barrage of tomahawks followed by NATO air strikes on government troops, hospitals, power stations, sanitation and water supply lines. That is the American way but they never sell it as that. They ask for something more reasonable sounding and then when you give it to them they go way over the mandate. Therein lies the problem. If there was a proper UN with a sizeable and deployable and capable peace keeping force that could enter situations without political bias, police, peace-keep and then leave things would be different but we shall never have such a thing (partly because the big powers don't want such a thing because it could be used to undermine their interests).
If the US knew that they could never get the go ahead to invade/attack countries just because there was internal violent unrest it would reduce the incentive to fund and provoke violent internal unrest which would mean that the US would have to go back to the old fashioned way of buying governments and propagandising their people. For some reason though, the US is, in the last couple of decades, in an awful hurry to get things "cleaned up" in a hurry. Perhaps their foreign policy theorists just think that blitzkrieg is the way to go or maybe there is some real pressing economic need.

As to propagandising foreign populations, if the US fears that foreign money is being used to politically influence the citizens of the US then those groups have to register in the US as foreign agents. Strangely enough, this was one of the requirements in the briefly enacted Ukrainian law that "strangled free speech". In fact I could find virtually nothing in that anti-free speech law that isn't already illegal in the US and mostly also in Canada. The sentences were somewhat harsher but then again, in the US you can be made to disappear into the military prison system on just the say-so of "senior" officials.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
When Kerry warned Russia not to interfere in Ukraine he did so from Kiev. Could that be seen as anything other than a suicide attack on American credibility?
America was interfering in Ukraine all along.
Click to expand...


Heard about this the other day. Depressingly, it didn't even cause a raised eyebrow.
 
Doubtless after the revolution the Ukrainians will cleanse themselves of the radicals that were involved in the attacks on the police and civil servants - because that's what always happens in revolutions, right. The thugs never take advantage of unrest to advance their cause. They aren't even willing to cause unrest in order to take advantage of it. The rebels in Benghazi certainly didn't escalate things, and Al-Qaeda in Syria certainly didn't and nor did Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin. No. The ambitious, hard headed fanatical types always end up taking a back seat and letting the people chose their own way. The one thing we know about fanatics is that they just don't care enough about power and doing things their way. People like Alexander Muzychko


won't last long. Look at how this public prosecutor makes quick work of this thug.

 
Hey Ukraine - here comes the auterity you fought for. Enjoy your victory with your 50% reduction in pensions.
Interview with Paul Craig Roberts (economist and an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan)
hint: It's the neo-cons
 
Robert said:
Interesting development if true.
Click to expand...
The security personnel could well be hired by some Kiev connected billionaires otherwise known as oligarchs. It looks like the Kiev government has given several eastern cities that are a bit too pro-Russian to oligarchs as their own fiefdoms.

Or, as the telegraph phrases it : "Billionaire businessmen have accepted appointments from the pro-Western government in Kiev to act as regional governors in three Russia-leaning areas of the country. The fledgling government has also secured the important endorsement of the country’s richest man."

Aw. Those super-caring billionaire businessmen - they just can't say no. How can you turn down an offer to do what you want from an institution you own?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Reporter quits CBS because it's too "Obama".

I could have chosen to use a different news source but this seemed funnier to me.
Click to expand...
You're such a loser. We've always trashed fox news for being right wing propaganda, you especially. I never said we should trust all Western news media. This is your strawman right here, you respond to something I never said. I'm simply pointing out that RT.com is equally useless as Fox news and many other news sites and yet you continue to post articles from there in such a way as if you're stating absolute facts. You're unreal.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Doubtless after the revolution the Ukrainians will cleanse themselves of the radicals that were involved in the attacks on the police and civil servants - because that's what always happens in revolutions, right. The thugs never take advantage of unrest to advance their cause. They aren't even willing to cause unrest in order to take advantage of it. The rebels in Benghazi certainly didn't escalate things, and Al-Qaeda in Syria certainly didn't and nor did Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin. No. The ambitious, hard headed fanatical types always end up taking a back seat and letting the people chose their own way. The one thing we know about fanatics is that they just don't care enough about power and doing things their way. People like Alexander Muzychko
Click to expand...
Well that's just horrible. Maybe those Ukrainians need saving from themselves. And who better to save them other than the Russians? Putin's boys would never do stuff like that, would they?

(Putin's favorite moment is at 2:30, great judo kick)

:rolleyes:

You know, Greeks voted Golden Dawn members into parliament and they're a bunch of ex-military psychopaths who go around beating the crap out of immigrants, leftists and homosexuals. Maybe Russia should invade Greece as well and save them from themselves too. And no I'm not trying to defend these guys, I hate them, but at the same time I know they are not unique to Ukraine and those pretending to be the good guys here are far from being any different. You would never get that from reading any of your regurgitated propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top