[Tau]

In this one particular circumstance, comparisons to Nazi Germany are actually pretty accurate. This isn't argumentum ad hitlerum, it's holy spud you guys Putin is acting scarily similar to how Hitler acted in the years leading up to the Blitzkrieg, and the rest of the world is largely following a strategy of appeasement again. It's a valid concern.

[DDDDAts all folks]

I'm sorry, are you equating Russia's move on the Crimea as the start of an assault on all of Europe? Why all the strawmen? Throwing Nazi's into the argument? That's an internet last resort. Nazis are always the very last thing you try to chuck in on an internet forum.

We have no business in Eastern block politics. We aren't the world police.

There are parallels that can be drawn between what happened at the beginning of ww2 and what's happening today.

But we're also discussing your the idea that the world will just leave us alone if we let them get on with it, as being ridiculous. It's not about being the world police it's about protecting our interests. Having Russia take over the eastern part of Europe is not a good thing for the UK, in terms of the economy, in terms of stability within the region and in terms of Russia's influence.

Get your head out the sand and don't assume (like others seem to be doing) that this is all driven by Western propaganda. It's driven by the fact that Russia has just invaded a peaceful country with it's military.

[Lord Dave]

I think the big difference between Hitler and Putin right now is that Putin went into the part of a country that cheered and waved Russian flags.

[Eddy Baby]

I think the big difference between Hitler and Putin right now is that Putin went into the part of a country that cheered and waved Russian flags.

Ahahah
hehehe

Good one.


Russia Today called; it wants its news back

[Lord Dave]

I think the big difference between Hitler and Putin right now is that Putin went into the part of a country that cheered and waved Russian flags.

Ahahah
hehehe

Good one.


Russia Today called; it wants its news back

Consider the history.
Russia basically put Russians there back when it was part of the Soviet Union.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

During the Soviet Union, there was a massive effort to 'Russify' the Union and sent Russians in their thousands to the republics, which is why you get places like Transnistria.



However, Crimea is a little more complicated, it has changed hands so many times over the last 200 years that it's hard to say who 'should' govern it. Russia certainly have a much older claim than Ukraine and the Tatars allign themselves with whoever can give them the best deal. However, the best way to sort this out would be for a proper referendum to be held (not the current Russian fudge which gives people the choice of either 1) Joining russia or 2) Making Crimea more autonomous) with the agreement of the interim government in Ukraine and watched and managed by the UN to try to make it fair.




    Option 1: In favor of reuniting Crimea with Russia as a federal subject of the Russian Federation.

    Option 2: In favor of restoring the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea while maintaining the status of Crimea as a part of the Ukraine.

[Thork]

watched and managed by the UN to try to make it fair.

How does that make it fair? The UN pick sides and is overwhelmingly run by the West.

[Rushy]

watched and managed by the UN to try to make it fair.

How does that make it fair? The UN pick sides and is overwhelmingly run by the West.

Which is why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN security council? Thork, I'm really starting to think you don't have an opinion at all. You just argue with the nearest poster to your reply and hope for the best. That, or you do have opinions and you don't bother to research them. You just make up an argument and try to work out all the details later.

[Thork]

Which is why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN security council?

And as you know would be outvoted horribly by the USA, France, UK et al.

[Rushy]

Which is why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN security council?

And as you know would be outvoted horribly by the USA, France, UK et al.

UN votes must be unanimous to pass. It only takes one vote against the proposal to stop it completely. Again, research your opinions, you dolt.

[Thork]

Which is why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN security council?

And as you know would be outvoted horribly by the USA, France, UK et al.

UN votes must be unanimous to pass. It only takes one vote against the proposal to stop it completely. Again, research your opinions, you dolt.

So how would the UN overseeing work if Russia would veto anything they didn't like?

Also resolutions don't have to be unanimous. You need 9 out of 15 votes for a resolution to pass with only 5 nations (US, Russia, UK, France and China) holding the power of veto.

But this wouldn't be a resolution. In fact I have no fucking idea what you are talking about as usual.

The UN has 6 main parts. Only the Security council works with 15 votes and power of veto. The General assembly has one vote each. The Court of Justice elects 15 judges. The secretariat has an elected UN Secretary General, the economic and social council elects 54 members and there is a trustee council which I think is asleep or mothballed or defunct or something. I'm probably wasting my time. You are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

[Rushy]

I'm glad you could realize your error. You seem to have forgotten what your own argument was... not surprising. As I said before, you seem to argue with the closest post. Here, let me remind you...

The UN pick sides and is overwhelmingly run by the West.

And let me introduce you to why your argument is wrong...

So how would the UN overseeing work if Russia would veto anything they didn't like?

Also resolutions don't have to be unanimous. You need 9 out of 15 votes for a resolution to pass with only 5 nations (US, Russia, UK, France and China) holding the power of veto.

But this wouldn't be a resolution. In fact I have no fucking idea what you are talking about as usual.

The UN has 6 main parts. Only the Security council works with 15 votes and power of veto. The General assembly has one vote each. The Court of Justice elects 15 judges. The secretariat has an elected UN Secretary General, the economic and social council elects 54 members and there is a trustee council which I think is asleep or mothballed or defunct or something. I'm probably wasting my time. You are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Congratulations. You have managed to create a circular argument with yourself in the span of three posts. That's a record.

[Thork]

I think you missed the point. It would NOT be a resolution. So your point about unanimous decisions is moot (and factually incorrect being as you only need 9 from 15 votes). The UN doesn't just make resolutions. It does have a few other tools up its sleeve too.

Its not the organisation to deal with this though. Its too biased. That was the point I was making. A point which you have done your damnedest to ignore.

[Rushy]

Its not the organisation to deal with this though. Its too biased. That was the point I was making. A point which you have done your damnedest to ignore.

Oh, I should probably make some sort of argument to show that the UN can't be biased.

So how would the UN overseeing work if Russia would veto anything they didn't like?

Also resolutions don't have to be unanimous. You need 9 out of 15 votes for a resolution to pass with only 5 nations (US, Russia, UK, France and China) holding the power of veto.

But this wouldn't be a resolution. In fact I have no fucking idea what you are talking about as usual.

The UN has 6 main parts. Only the Security council works with 15 votes and power of veto. The General assembly has one vote each. The Court of Justice elects 15 judges. The secretariat has an elected UN Secretary General, the economic and social council elects 54 members and there is a trustee council which I think is asleep or mothballed or defunct or something. I'm probably wasting my time. You are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Wow, you sure make this easy.

[Thork]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26504078

Seems I hold the popular opinion. Just read the comments. The British public aren't interested in this at all. We want out.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26504078

Seems I hold the popular opinion. Just read the comments. The British public aren't interested in this at all. We want out.

Comments on a news site?  Really?
What's next, polling facebook comments?

[DDDDAts all folks]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26504078

Seems I hold the popular opinion. Just read the comments. The British public aren't interested in this at all. We want out.

Do you really think that is the consensus of the British public?

I'm part of the 'British public' does my opinion not count?

All I see are a few people making comments without understanding the long term ramifications. Just like yourself. I hope one day I don't have to say "I told you so" when we have to go to war because we didn't do anything to prevent it.

[Thork]

You are one of the duped minority listening to the hysterical rantings of plonkers like Hague.

[DDDDAts all folks]

You are one of the duped minority listening to the hysterical rantings of plonkers like Hague.

Minority? Do you honestly think the BBC website is a good indicator of how the British public feel?

I would say you are one of the blind electorate who thinks the world will just pass us by if we do nothing.

I can't stand Hague, Cameron or most politicians, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. However I do think we need to prevent these things from happening so we don't have to go to war when Russia, or any other country, is threatening our interests to the point where blind people, like yourself, can see we have to do something.

You've also made the assumption (as have others) that I've (and perhaps others) formed my opinion through the western media or the ramblings of a few politicians. I can assure you I haven't.

You however disregard the facts under the pretence that everything has a Western Bias to it so it can't be true.

[Saddam Hussein]

I can't stand Hague, Cameron or most politicians, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

So brave.