The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on March 01, 2014, 07:29:47 PM
-
Putin has sent Russian troops into Ukraine despite warnings from President Obama. I foresee that Obama will wag his finger and sternly talk in Russia's general direction and no action will be taken whatsoever.
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6751
The vote to invade Ukraine was approved by Russian Parliament 90 to 0.
-
Invasions are always so fun. Russia is such a good country.
-
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/1/1393687089642/45d0299d-b0ce-40f0-ae40-b772851899ea-460x276.png)
GREETINGS FROM SOVIET RUSSIA!
Also, these aren't main battle tanks, but mobile artillery. Just a clarification of what Soviet Russia is doing over there.
-
Bit of crowd control, is it?
-
Why is Russian invading Ukraine?
-
Why is Russian invading Ukraine?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/30/9-questions-about-ukraine-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/
It's a month old article but it does a good job of explaining everything. Basically things just kept getting worse and Russia does not want to see Ukraine become part of the EU or NATO. They even threatened to point nuclear missiles at Ukraine in 2008 if they joined NATO.
-
It seems to me they should just split the damn country in two, give the Russian half to Russia and leave it at that.
-
It seems to me they should just split the damn country in two, give the Russian half to Russia and leave it at that.
Yes, I'm sure that won't cause even more political turmoil or decimate their economy or anything.
-
Maybe you would like to step out of your US media bubble a second and consider what has actually happened?
The Ukraine has just undergone a massive coup funded by
http://beforeitsnews.com/protests-demonstrations/2014/02/ukraine-protests-the-truth-behind-the-kiev-uprising-u-s-funded-regime-change-video-2452914.html
Oh, you guys.
The US has been busy meddling and made the first move to get the Ukraine to move from its trade agreements with Russia and move towards the Union with the EU aka the European Central banking system which is run by the same people who run the FED.
Now, I've been playing Civilization for a very long time, and I can tell you when a rival empire starts to culture fuck one of your cities from you, you get your stack and go get it back immediately.
Russia didn't start this. The US did. But your media isn't going to tell you that. And neither is ours.
-
*shrug* Rather our bank overlords control Ukraine anyway.
-
So that Ukraine ends up like Greece or Spain after they have loaded it with debt and sucked it dry? That's not very nice.
-
I'm slightly bitter. (http://www.escardio.org/SiteCollectionImages/Countries-NS/Flags/Flag-Ireland-small.jpg)
-
The whole situation in Ukraine saddens me. When I visited last year, Kyiv was one of the friendliest places I'd ever visited; a local man and his daughter helped us on the overnight train to Odessa when there was confusion with our tickets, complete strangers started up conversations with us on the metro (despite me being the only one who spoke any Russian at all between the six of us,) everyone we stopped was happy to help give directions (even when drunkenly bumping into a hooded youth in the snow,) and locals on the packed buses were all too happy to pass us their money to buy tickets. Even the few people we spoke to in Chernobyl had a good sense of humour. To see the scenes of it being rent apart is tragic.
-
ITT: Thork is literally Alex Jones.
-
http://beforeitsnews
Stopped reading here. Come back when you have taken your tin foil hat off.
-
Evil banks are responsible for every problem in the world ever.
-
Is this how the rest of the world feels when we 'Murica up a country?
-
Is this how the rest of the world feels when we 'Murica up a country?
No, we don't annex countries after we "fix" them.
-
Is this how the rest of the world feels when we 'Murica up a country?
No, we don't annex countries after we "fix" them.
Not technically.
-
Anyway, we all know that it's actually all about katsung somehow.
-
Anyway, we all know that it's actually all about katsung somehow.
It's all an elaborate setup by the FBI to lure him out of his bunker?
-
I am gearing up for the great war of our time.
-
Russia has broken international law.
Which means bugger all. What's the point of having a law if you can't enforce it.
-
Russia has broken international law.
Which means bugger all. What's the point of having a law if you can't enforce it.
What international law? If you're talking about UN laws, the UN is utterly useless. They haven't wrangled with NATO yet, but Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have all called a NATO meeting because they feel threatened because Russia invaded one of it's old satellite nations without provocation. Putin threatened to nuke Ukraine if it joined NATO, just to give everyone an idea of how much Russia just loves NATO.
-
Russia has broken international law.
Which means bugger all. What's the point of having a law if you can't enforce it.
You mean putting its troops in another nation's territory without actually declaring war? Like the US did in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Vietnam? I think the subtle difference is that the Russians haven't actually started killing people without a declaration of war so I guess if you are going to break the law, you should just go balls out.
I wonder if there is a more hypocritical nation on earth?
-
England was right there with them for 2 of the 3.
-
You mean putting its troops in another nation's territory without actually declaring war? Like the US did in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Vietnam? I think the subtle difference is that the Russians haven't actually started killing people without a declaration of war so I guess if you are going to break the law, you should just go balls out.
I wonder if there is a more hypocritical nation on earth?
???
Why is it that no matter what is being discussed, you bring up the US? You must think about it a lot.
-
You mean putting its troops in another nation's territory without actually declaring war? Like the US did in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Vietnam? I think the subtle difference is that the Russians haven't actually started killing people without a declaration of war so I guess if you are going to break the law, you should just go balls out.
I wonder if there is a more hypocritical nation on earth?
???
Why is it that no matter what is being discussed, you bring up the US? You must think about it a lot.
The American tension. He has stars and stripes envy.
-
Russia has broken international law.
Which means bugger all. What's the point of having a law if you can't enforce it.
You mean putting its troops in another nation's territory without actually declaring war? Like the US did in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Vietnam? I think the subtle difference is that the Russians haven't actually started killing people without a declaration of war so I guess if you are going to break the law, you should just go balls out.
I wonder if there is a more hypocritical nation on earth?
Not the same situation at all.
-
Russia has broken international law.
Which means bugger all. What's the point of having a law if you can't enforce it.
You mean putting its troops in another nation's territory without actually declaring war? Like the US did in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Vietnam? I think the subtle difference is that the Russians haven't actually started killing people without a declaration of war so I guess if you are going to break the law, you should just go balls out.
I wonder if there is a more hypocritical nation on earth?
Not the same situation at all.
As Thork's sits on his high horse I wonder if he realizes that the UK did not declare war on Afghanistan or Iraq either?
-
Russia has broken international law.
Which means bugger all. What's the point of having a law if you can't enforce it.
You mean putting its troops in another nation's territory without actually declaring war? Like the US did in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Vietnam? I think the subtle difference is that the Russians haven't actually started killing people without a declaration of war so I guess if you are going to break the law, you should just go balls out.
I wonder if there is a more hypocritical nation on earth?
Did we not ask for a declaration of war with Vietnam? That's shitty. Although I suppose 'shitty' neatly sums up the entirety of the Vietnam war.
But there is a difference with Iraq and Afghanistan, which is that we had been attacked. Ukrainian militants have yet to begin trying to blow up the Kremlin to my knowledge. We were trying to ensure our own safety. Russia is trying to rebuild its empire.
-
Russia trying to build an Empire is like Kevin James trying to get fat.
-
I would just like to point out to the e-lawyers here that a formal declaration of war isn't some kind of strict legal prerequisite to any military action. It's really just a formality that's pretty outdated in this day and age.
-
I would just like to point out to the e-lawyers here that an formal declaration of war isn't some kind of strict legal prerequisite to any military action. It's really just a formality that's pretty outdated in this day and age.
In the US the president can only send in troops for a certain period of time. If that period of time expires and Congress has not declared war, the troops must withdraw per US law.
-
I would just like to point out to the e-lawyers here that an formal declaration of war isn't some kind of strict legal prerequisite to any military action. It's really just a formality that's pretty outdated in this day and age.
It's not about declaring war. It's about invading a country as a military occupying power.
If it wasn't for international law the US and France would be in Syria by now. Although admittedly it didn't stop the UK and US invading Iraq.
-
Russia has broken international law.
Which means bugger all. What's the point of having a law if you can't enforce it.
You mean putting its troops in another nation's territory without actually declaring war? Like the US did in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Vietnam? I think the subtle difference is that the Russians haven't actually started killing people without a declaration of war so I guess if you are going to break the law, you should just go balls out.
I wonder if there is a more hypocritical nation on earth?
Did we not ask for a declaration of war with Vietnam? That's shitty. Although I suppose 'shitty' neatly sums up the entirety of the Vietnam war.
But there is a difference with Iraq and Afghanistan, which is that we had been attacked. Ukrainian militants have yet to begin trying to blow up the Kremlin to my knowledge. We were trying to ensure our own safety. Russia is trying to rebuild its empire.
Neither Iraq, nor Ahghanistan, but especially Iraq attacked the US.
-
Russia has broken international law.
Which means bugger all. What's the point of having a law if you can't enforce it.
You mean putting its troops in another nation's territory without actually declaring war? Like the US did in Iraq, or Afghanistan or Vietnam? I think the subtle difference is that the Russians haven't actually started killing people without a declaration of war so I guess if you are going to break the law, you should just go balls out.
I wonder if there is a more hypocritical nation on earth?
Did we not ask for a declaration of war with Vietnam? That's shitty. Although I suppose 'shitty' neatly sums up the entirety of the Vietnam war.
But there is a difference with Iraq and Afghanistan, which is that we had been attacked. Ukrainian militants have yet to begin trying to blow up the Kremlin to my knowledge. We were trying to ensure our own safety. Russia is trying to rebuild its empire.
Neither Iraq, nor Ahghanistan, but especially Iraq attacked the US.
Well, we had exactly no reason to invade Iraq. But we *had* been recently attacked, and we were able to pretend we did. As for Afghanistan, our stated policy is to not particularly care that terrorists are not explicitly endorsed by their governments. So they might as well have attacked us.
-
At least they could have gotten some mileage from pissing off the US mirite?
-
In the US the president can only send in troops for a certain period of time. If that period of time expires and Congress has not declared war, the troops must withdraw per US law.
Or Congress can give an equivalent authorization, which is invariably what they do. And that's only since 1973.
It's not about declaring war. It's about invading a country as a military occupying power.
I agree. That's why I wanted to clear up Tausami and Thork's misconception that it was about declaring war.
-
As Thork's sits on his high horse I wonder if he realizes that the UK did not declare war on Afghanistan or Iraq either?
Well aware and I know that horrible little bastard William Hague is over in Kiev right now telling people what to do. I wish he'd just fuck off and leave them to it. Its not our business.
But there is a difference with Iraq and Afghanistan, which is that we had been attacked.
I'm sorry, I must have missed that. How exactly did Iraq attack the US? I was under the impression the US made up a story about them having chemical weapons and then attacked them, knowing full well they didn't have any.
I'd like to know what exactly Russia have done that is illegal, that the US didn't do in Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan? Somehow the perception is Russia is doing something illegal. What exactly?
I also see the US threatening to kick Russia out of the G8. I wasn't aware the US was in charge of the G8?
Also, just wondering, whose side is China on? Unlike us, they seem to be minding their own business as usual.
-
China is busy worrying about knife wielding hordes of ninja Muslims right now. They will give a fuck when they get the chance.
-
I'd like to know what exactly Russia have done that is illegal, that the US didn't do in Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan? Somehow the perception is Russia is doing something illegal. What exactly?
I don't know, something like invading one of its old satellite countries for no reason? The political unrest isn't nearly so bad that Ukraine had to be invaded by a large country.
I also see the US threatening to kick Russia out of the G8. I wasn't aware the US was in charge of the G8?
The US is in charge of the world. The G8 is part of the world.
Also, just wondering, whose side is China on? Unlike us, they seem to be minding their own business as usual.
China will try to nuke Japan when it thinks no one is looking.
-
I don't think China has said much at all yet. It's in their interest not to.
-
Well aware and I know that horrible little bastard William Hague is over in Kiev right now telling people what to do. I wish he'd just fuck off and leave them to it. Its not our business.
You do realise we don't live in a bubble of rainbows and unicorns... right?
-
No one in this thread seems to have any sense outside of Saddam.
-
No one in this thread seems to have any sense outside of Saddam.
Including yourself of course.
-
The situation in short: Russia is entirely in the wrong. End.
-
No one in this thread seems to have any sense outside of Saddam.
This is always the case, no matter the thread.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/1002662_10153855801105720_1288159701_n.jpg)
-
The situation in short: Russia is entirely in the wrong. End.
I think I disagree. At the very least, I think it's more complicated than that. Ukraine is a big-time Russian national interest, and Russia has no interest in seeing a coup overthrow the democratically elected, pro-Russia, Ukrainian government.
I get that there are some important differences between these two, but I imagine the US behaving similarly if the government of Panama was overthrown in a coup supportive of Russia's national interests. We'd probably go in and shut that shit down right away. Kinda need that canal.
-
Ah so it's wrong to illegitimately invade another country unless you reaaallly reaallly want to, in which case it's ok?
-
Ah so it's wrong to illegitimately invade another country unless you reaaallly reaallly want to, in which case it's ok?
Not at all. I'm saying that, from Russia's perspective, they're not illegitimately invading another nation. They're protecting the legitimately elected government from an unconstitutional coup.
And, of course, the US and EU view Russia as interfering with a 'democratic,' popular coup against a corrupt government. But the US and EU reactions to the crisis are just as politically motivated as Russia's. The West wants to strengthen ties with former Soviet states and contain Russia. Russia wants to protect its sphere of influence from the West.
As I mentioned, if the government of Panama was overthrown by a 'pro-Russia' coup (or any other coup that threatened our access to the Panama Canal), then I would see no problem with the US acting to protect and reinstate the legitimately elected government. Not only are we allies with and protectorates of that government, but also we have huge economic and military interests in it.
I'm partly playing the devil's advocate here. I'm not super pro-Russia on this crisis. But I also don't think that their behavior and rationale are totally off the mark.
-
Not at all. I'm saying that, from Russia's perspective, they're not illegitimately invading another nation. They're protecting the legitimately elected government from an unconstitutional coup.
No, they're keeping a revolution from turning a pro-Russia government into a pro-EU government, which would cost them their only deep warm water port. A EU Ukraine would devastate the Russian economy. This isn't at all about Ukraine itself, Russia is acting solely in Russia's best interest.
-
Gary, you may want to read up on that "legitimately" and "democratically elected government". Its election was surrounded with questions and unexplained inconsistencies, which eventually led to Tymoshenko being jailed for questioning it too much.
-
As I understand it, that whole area is basically pro Russian because they are mostly Russian immigrants.
As long as Russia doesn't start killing, they're fine in my book.
-
As I understand it, that whole area is basically pro Russian because they are mostly Russian immigrants.
Not exactly. Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in the 1950s. They didn't move to Ukraine - Ukraine moved to them.
Here's a decent starting point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26367786
-
Here's a decent starting point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26367786
Lol, that's a link to our state-run media. If ever you wanted a biased link, the BBC is it. That is the most undecent starting point you could have offered. Even a link to one of Rushy's rants would have been a more fitting start.
-
As I understand it, that whole area is basically pro Russian because they are mostly Russian immigrants.
Not exactly. Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in the 1950s. They didn't move to Ukraine - Ukraine moved to them.
Here's a decent starting point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26367786 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26367786)
Yeah but wasn't most of Ukrain's Western half shipped over from Russia when it was the soviet union to deal with some massive under-population due to death or something?
-
No, they're keeping a revolution from turning a pro-Russia government into a pro-EU government, which would cost them their only deep warm water port. A EU Ukraine would devastate the Russian economy. This isn't at all about Ukraine itself, Russia is acting solely in Russia's best interest.
Ultimately, I agree completely. That's what I was getting at with my Panama analogy. The US would certainly have a keen (and legitimate, in my view) interest in protecting the Panama canal. Likewise, I think Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting its resources in Crimea.
Personally, I think it's about more than that. Russia's national and cultural interests aren't at odds here. They're both important causes. And, the Ukraine is undoubtedly a state to which Russia feels a strong regional and cultural connection. They're its protectorate.
Gary, you may want to read up on that "legitimately" and "democratically elected government". Its election was surrounded with questions and unexplained inconsistencies, which eventually led to Tymoshenko being jailed for questioning it too much.
The European Union thought in 2010 that it was a fair election: http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/policy-memos-pdf/pepm_090.pdf
The dénouement of Ukraine’s presidential election in January-February 2010 was as raucous as the campaign. Appearing at a victory rally on election night, Viktor Yanukovych spoke to his supporters only in Russian, even as he claimed to be grateful to “all Ukrainians.” In subsequent days, the defeated candidate, Yulia Tymoshenko, refused to accept the outcome even though all international election monitors reported that the election had been fair and legitimate...The head of the large election observer mission for the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe, Heidi Tagliavini, hailed the 2010 Ukrainian election as “a well-administered and truly competitive election offering
voters a clear choice.”
I don't think that the West should now turn around and use political corruption as an excuse to support an unconstitutional coup of a democratically elected government.
FWIW, Tymoshenko wasn't jailed for questioning the elections. Lots of people in Ukraine did that. She and Yanukovych have been political adversaries for nearly 20 years. Tymoshenko was probably arrested to prevent her from seeking office in the future.
A good summary of those events: http://helsinki.org.ua/files/docs/1321265218.pdf
As I understand it, that whole area is basically pro Russian because they are mostly Russian immigrants.
The Crimea and the Eastern part of Ukraine are largely ethnically Russian, with the rest of the country mostly ethnic Ukrainian. The ethnic Russia's are very pro-Russia, but the ethnic Ukrainians are more divided. Some love the West. Some just want to be independent of both the West and Russia. And, some still see Russia has a valuable protectorate.
You also have a smattering of other ethnicities that complicate things. Moldavians, Poles, Tatars, Belarusians, etc.
-
The European Union thought in 2010 that it was a fair election: http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/policy-memos-pdf/pepm_090.pdf [...]
FWIW, Tymoshenko wasn't jailed for questioning the elections. Lots of people in Ukraine did that.
Yes, but "lots of people" were not figureheads of the questioning. Tymoshenko was. There's no point in jailing "lots of people" when you can resolve the whole situation by jailing one.
To claim that she wasn't jailed for questioning the elections means to ignore the timeline of events. The fact that the West tried to maintain good "soft" relations with Russia in the past does nothing to substantiate your claim that Russia's wanton invasion is legitimate.
-
Yes, but "lots of people" were not figureheads of the questioning. Tymoshenko was. There's no point in jailing "lots of people" when you can resolve the whole situation by jailing one.
To claim that she wasn't jailed for questioning the elections means to ignore the timeline of events.
Have another look at the timeline. My evidence indicates that the 2010 election was already given a big thumbs-up by both Ukraine's Central Election Commission and the EU's own election commission. The situation was already resolved. Tymoshenko was charged in May of 2011. It doesn't make sense to me that Yanukovych would jail Tymoshenko for questioning the legitimacy of his government after it had already been approved as legitimate. There's nothing to gain on that front.
It also makes little sense that Yanukovych would think that arresting Tymoshenko could 'resolve' international and domestic oversight of his election by the Ukraine Supreme Court, the Central Elections Commission, and the EU.
It makes a lot of sense to me that, at the height of his power, he jailed his primary political opponent of the last two decades on trumped-up felony charges to prevent her from being able to legally hold office. They've been adversaries for nearly two decades.
The fact that the West tried to maintain good "soft" relations with Russia in the past does nothing to substantiate your claim that Russia's wanton invasion is legitimate.
Where did I say that? That's not how I'm substantiating my claim. The issue for me is of Russia's legitimate national interests in Crimea and Yanukovych's legitimate claim to be the democratically elected ruler of Ukraine. If you believe as I do that an unconstitutional coup has overthrown a constitutionally elected government, then why shouldn't Russia, its neighbor and ally, get involved? Even if it didn't have an interest in controlling Crimea, it certainly has a legitimate interest in protecting both ethnic Russians in the region, and the government of a neighboring state.
Also, Russia's response has hardly been wanton. There's been no violence, and Russia has a well-known and explicit interest in the region.
-
trumped-up felony charges
In fairness, looking at the histories of most Ukranian MPS, charges of corruption could be deployed against virtually any of them. The choice to use it against the opposition leader was purely political.
-
trumped-up felony charges
In fairness, looking at the histories of most Ukranian MPS, charges of corruption could be deployed against virtually any of them. The choice to use it against the opposition leader was purely political.
I agree completely. I have a lot of sympathy for Tymoshenko, but she's probably just as corrupt as the rest of Ukraine's political body.
Also, she's really, really hot.
-
Tymoshenko was charged in May of 2011.
Try again. That was the last charge in a fairly long streak, and the one that was ultimately successful. Her first charge* came up on the 12th of May 2010.
* - Okay, technically that was a re-opening of a past charge.
Russia's response has hardly been wanton. There's been no violence
Out of curiosity, what's your favourite source of world news? It's starting to sound like you watch RT.
Putin himself had to defend his country against allegations of aggression, which have been widely documented. He decided to say that it was angry people who happened to buy Russian army suits to make him look bad.
QUESTION: Mr President, a clarification if I may. The people who were blocking the Ukrainian Army units in Crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian Army uniform. Were those Russian soldiers, Russian military?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why don’t you take a look at the post-Soviet states. There are many uniforms there that are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform.
QUESTION: But were they Russian soldiers or not?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Those were local self-defense units.
-
Tymoshenko was charged in May of 2011.
Try again. That was the last charge in a fairly long streak, and the one that was ultimately successful. Her first charge* came up on the 12th of May 2010.
* - Okay, technically that was a re-opening of a past charge.
This is all irrelevant to my point that Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting the democratically-elected government in Ukraine from an unconstitutional coup. They're neighbors and allies. Russia needs access to Crimea. Russia needs access to LNG transportation through Ukraine.
And you're wrong anyway. Tymoshenko was first charged in December of 2010:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c703cec-0c79-11e0-8408-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2vDIB1tGM
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/56556.html
That's 10 months after Tymoshenko dropped her legal challenge of Yanukovych's election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/world/europe/21ukraine.html?_r=0
She was convicted in October of 2011.
You apparently have nothing to say on my most salient points, that 1) arresting Tymoshenko after she drops her legal challenge, and after the elections have been declared legitimate, makes no sense; and, 2) that Tymoshenko wasn't the figurehead of any of the international or domestic organizations overseeing the elections in the first place.
At the time she was arrested, Tymoshenko was focused on speaking out against a new parliamentary coalition founded by Yanucovych and supported by the then-PM, Mykola Azarov. Seriously, their relationship reads like a season of House of Cards. It's about way, way more than her opposition to his presidency.
Russia's response has hardly been wanton. There's been no violence
Out of curiosity, what's your favourite source of world news? It's starting to sound like you watch RT.
Lexis Nexis. Al-Jazeera America if I'm watching a news station on TV.
Putin himself had to defend his country against allegations of aggression, which have been widely documented.
Russia's response has been non-violent and measured. That's the opposite of wanton. They sent some troops to Crimea and surrounded some military bases. That's about it.
Compare that to the US reaction to Noriega's coup in Panama in 1989. I'd say the Russians are being downright polite by comparison.
-
Cameron just will not shut his face. :(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26475630
-
This is all irrelevant to my point that Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting the democratically-elected government in Ukraine from an unconstitutional coup. They're neighbors and allies. Russia needs access to Crimea. Russia needs access to LNG transportation through Ukraine.
I thought the democratically elected government of Ukraine voted to get rid of the president and replace him with a provisional one until the people of Ukraine can vote on who should run their country.
Russia then invaded and occupied Ukraine because it saw its interests being threatened. That's the coup.
-
Cameron just will not shut his face. :(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26475630
I'm glad he's protecting the interests of the UK.
-
This is all irrelevant to my point that Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting the democratically-elected government in Ukraine from an unconstitutional coup.
Indeed, but it's not irrelevant to the claim I made, which you're currently responding to - that the election was far from legitimate. Please try to keep up with your own claims.
And you're wrong anyway. Tymoshenko was first charged in December of 2010
Sigh. Have you at least tried Googling it, or are you too "well-informed, thanks" for that kind of stuff? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/7717602/Ukraine-reopens-bribery-case-against-Yulia-Tymoshenko.html
Lexis Nexis.
LexisNexis, the law research tool? I didn't think they do world news, and I'm struggling to find it.
-
I'm glad he's protecting the interests of the UK.
He's not protecting your interests.
You'll be funding a very expensive war if he carries on, and you won't get anything out of it if we win.
Please, explain how this is in our interests. I can see how its in the interests of those who own North Sea Gas companies and might want to choke off Russian supply. I can see how Western banks can load Ukraine with debt. I can see how the shareholders of BAE systems et al will make a killing selling to our military.
I can't see how a man on the street with higher taxes to pay benefits in the slightest. This isn't our problem. We should be paying for it.
-
(http://praag.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tymoshenko1-300x200.jpg)
(http://gdb.voanews.com/05EA05B8-47D8-4B5D-AEED-F056CA019BB3_w268_r1_cx0_cy4_cw0.jpg)
2010
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/23/1393182486968/Yulia-Tymoshenko-addresse-011.jpg)
Either the Soviets have invented a machine that can age you 20 years in 3 and a half or this woman has spent those 3 and a half years cleaning toilets with her face.
I can't think of anyone who has lost their looks so fast. Yeah, off-beat and shallow, but I'm Thork. What did you expect?
-
She developed some chronic back problem which was not properly treated. I imagine that contributed to her fatigued look.
-
Either the Soviets have invented a machine that can age you 20 years in 3 and a half or this woman has spent those 3 and a half years cleaning toilets with her face.
Or, she stopped wearing makeup.
-
I'm glad he's protecting the interests of the UK.
He's not protecting your interests.
You'll be funding a very expensive war if he carries on, and you won't get anything out of it if we win.
Please, explain how this is in our interests. I can see how its in the interests of those who own North Sea Gas companies and might want to choke off Russian supply. I can see how Western banks can load Ukraine with debt. I can see how the shareholders of BAE systems et al will make a killing selling to our military.
I can't see how a man on the street with higher taxes to pay benefits in the slightest. This isn't our problem. We should be paying for it.
So short sighted.
What happens in 20 (or more) years? When Russia, if left unchallenged, becomes so influential in the world that they can do what the hell they want. (This applies to any country)
We don't live in a bubble of unicorns and rainbows. We don't have the situation where the rest of the world doesn't matter to us because we are so reliant on it. We have to try and influence events so that our interests in the long run are achieved. Having Russia dominate Eastern Europe will make it highly unstable and will likely cause a war (not with us but with those Eastern countries). It's in our interests to try and prevent that because we are so reliant on Russian gas supplies.
We influenced that part of the world a few years ago and got Ukraine to disarm it's nuclear arsenal. If we hadn't done that the situation in Ukraine would be far worse than it is today.
-
I'm glad he's protecting the interests of the UK.
He's not protecting your interests.
You'll be funding a very expensive war if he carries on, and you won't get anything out of it if we win.
Please, explain how this is in our interests. I can see how its in the interests of those who own North Sea Gas companies and might want to choke off Russian supply. I can see how Western banks can load Ukraine with debt. I can see how the shareholders of BAE systems et al will make a killing selling to our military.
I can't see how a man on the street with higher taxes to pay benefits in the slightest. This isn't our problem. We should be paying for it.
I love the way your only issue with getting involved and potentially starting a war is the tax increase you might be facing.
-
She developed some chronic back problem which was not properly treated. I imagine that contributed to her fatigued look.
That's not the look of a tired woman. That's the look of a woman that has donated her face for extensive wind tunnel testing.
Or, she stopped wearing makeup.
Which then caused her face to swell to twice its size, turn purple and crumble. If makeup can do that to a woman, we could get you looking like Orlando Bloom.
What happens in 20 (or more) years? When Russia, if left unchallenged, becomes so influential in the world that they can do what the hell they want. (This applies to any country)
Including America? They do what they want already. And they are far more irresponsible with that power than Russia.
We don't live in a bubble of unicorns and rainbows. We don't have the situation where the rest of the world doesn't matter to us because we are so reliant on it. We have to try and influence events so that our interests in the long run are achieved. Having Russia dominate Eastern Europe will make it highly unstable and will likely cause a war (not with us but with those Eastern countries). It's in our interests to try and prevent that because we are so reliant on Russian gas supplies.
wat? Listen, if they have a war over there, we'll be able to pick up gas cheap as they seek to raise funds for a war. And why would having Russia dominate make it unstable? Having artificial influences like the UN, EU, NATO, US, UK etc is what makes regions unstable. Allow hem to fight it out, redraw borders etc and the pressure goes again. We have conflict because we keep sticking our bloody beak in all over the place. If We left Israel to it, the middle east would eat it, and most of the regions problems would disappear.
We influenced that part of the world a few years ago and got Ukraine to disarm it's nuclear arsenal. If we hadn't done that the situation in Ukraine would be far worse than it is today.
If they had nuclear weapons ... Russia wouldn't have invaded. No nation with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded. Think on that a while, Mr Glorious Western Empire Can Do No Wrong.
-
I'm glad he's protecting the interests of the UK.
He's not protecting your interests.
You'll be funding a very expensive war if he carries on, and you won't get anything out of it if we win.
Please, explain how this is in our interests. I can see how its in the interests of those who own North Sea Gas companies and might want to choke off Russian supply. I can see how Western banks can load Ukraine with debt. I can see how the shareholders of BAE systems et al will make a killing selling to our military.
I can't see how a man on the street with higher taxes to pay benefits in the slightest. This isn't our problem. We should be paying for it.
I love the way your only issue with getting involved and potentially starting a war is the tax increase you might be facing.
What else does anyone in this conflict give a shit about apart from money? The entire conflict is over money. So why should I pay to ensure some of it goes to one party or another?
-
She developed some chronic back problem which was not properly treated. I imagine that contributed to her fatigued look.
That's not the look of a tired woman. That's the look of a woman that has donated her face for extensive wind tunnel testing.
Or, she stopped wearing makeup.
Which then caused her face to swell to twice its size, turn purple and crumble. If makeup can do that to a woman, we could get you looking like Orlando Bloom.
What happens in 20 (or more) years? When Russia, if left unchallenged, becomes so influential in the world that they can do what the hell they want. (This applies to any country)
Including America? They do what they want already. And they are far more irresponsible with that power than Russia.
We don't live in a bubble of unicorns and rainbows. We don't have the situation where the rest of the world doesn't matter to us because we are so reliant on it. We have to try and influence events so that our interests in the long run are achieved. Having Russia dominate Eastern Europe will make it highly unstable and will likely cause a war (not with us but with those Eastern countries). It's in our interests to try and prevent that because we are so reliant on Russian gas supplies.
wat? Listen, if they have a war over there, we'll be able to pick up gas cheap as they seek to raise funds for a war. And why would having Russia dominate make it unstable? Having artificial influences like the UN, EU, NATO, US, UK etc is what makes regions unstable. Allow hem to fight it out, redraw borders etc and the pressure goes again. We have conflict because we keep sticking our bloody beak in all over the place. If We left Israel to it, the middle east would eat it, and most of the regions problems would disappear.
We influenced that part of the world a few years ago and got Ukraine to disarm it's nuclear arsenal. If we hadn't done that the situation in Ukraine would be far worse than it is today.
If they had nuclear weapons ... Russia wouldn't have invaded. No nation with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded. Think on that a while, Mr Glorious Western Empire Can Do No Wrong.
So what do you think would have happened 80 (ish) years ago when Germany decided to invade Poland if the UK just didn't give a shit?
The situation in Ukraine is far more stable because there's no nuclear warheads hanging about. This is going off topic now but do you think it's wise to allow unstable countries to have access to nuclear weapons?
Should we let Iran and Israel have nuclear weapons? According to your logic it would make the situation far more stable because, you know, no country with a nuclear weapon capability has ever been invaded.
-
So what do you think would have happened 80 (ish) years ago when Germany decided to invade Poland if the UK just didn't give a shit?
They invaded anyway. If we had left well alone, Hitler would have mopped up all the Jewish bankers, all the Jewish media-moguls and Israel wouldn't exist.
Should we let Iran and Israel have nuclear weapons?
Israel does have nuclear weapons.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html
I think you are getting out of your depth.
-
So what do you think would have happened 80 (ish) years ago when Germany decided to invade Poland if the UK just didn't give a shit?
They invaded anyway. If we had left well alone, Hitler would have mopped up all the Jewish bankers, all the Jewish media-moguls and Israel wouldn't exist.
Now your just being stupid. Please form a proper argument without being silly (and attempting to be a troll).
Should we let Iran and Israel have nuclear weapons?
Israel does have nuclear weapons.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html
I think you are getting out of your depth.
You might be trying to have a pissing contest by suggesting I'm out of my depth. I'm not interested.
Israel is not a recognised nuclear state (because if it were it would be highly unstable for the region). It probably does have nuclear weapons but until it's proven otherwise, Israel does not have nuclear weapons officially.
I also said we should arm Iran through the logic of your argument, so what are your thoughts on that?
-
So what do you think would have happened 80 (ish) years ago when Germany decided to invade Poland if the UK just didn't give a shit?
They invaded anyway. If we had left well alone, Hitler would have mopped up all the Jewish bankers, all the Jewish media-moguls and Israel wouldn't exist.
Now your just being stupid. Please form a proper argument without being silly (and attempting to be a troll).
Should we let Iran and Israel have nuclear weapons?
Israel does have nuclear weapons.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html
I think you are getting out of your depth.
You might be trying to have a pissing contest by suggesting I'm out of my depth. I'm not interested.
Israel is not a recognised nuclear state (because if it were it would be highly unstable for the region). It probably does have nuclear weapons but until it's proven otherwise, Israel does not have nuclear weapons officially.
I also said we should arm Iran through the logic of your argument, so what are your thoughts on that?
We shouldn't be arming anyone. We should be minding our own bloody business.
-
That's not the look of a tired woman. That's the look of a woman that has donated her face for extensive wind tunnel testing.
Tired? No, I agree. Severely exhausted for 3 years? Quite possibly.
-
So what do you think would have happened 80 (ish) years ago when Germany decided to invade Poland if the UK just didn't give a shit?
They invaded anyway. If we had left well alone, Hitler would have mopped up all the Jewish bankers, all the Jewish media-moguls and Israel wouldn't exist.
Now your just being stupid. Please form a proper argument without being silly (and attempting to be a troll).
Should we let Iran and Israel have nuclear weapons?
Israel does have nuclear weapons.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html
I think you are getting out of your depth.
You might be trying to have a pissing contest by suggesting I'm out of my depth. I'm not interested.
Israel is not a recognised nuclear state (because if it were it would be highly unstable for the region). It probably does have nuclear weapons but until it's proven otherwise, Israel does not have nuclear weapons officially.
I also said we should arm Iran through the logic of your argument, so what are your thoughts on that?
We shouldn't be arming anyone. We should be minding our own bloody business.
Ok I'll rephrase it. Do you think we should allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons by 'minding our own business' and doing bugger all to stop them?
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
So what do you think the ramifications of that might be for the interests of the UK?
-
None. If we left them alone, they would be so busy squabbling with their neighbours they wouldn't give us a second thought.
-
This is all irrelevant to my point that Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting the democratically-elected government in Ukraine from an unconstitutional coup.
Indeed, but it's not irrelevant to the claim I made, which you're currently responding to - that the election was far from legitimate. Please try to keep up with your own claims.
I've already provided you with evidence that international monitors approved the 2010 elections. Here's more:
http://www.utoronto.ca/jacyk/ElectionWatch/Blog/Entries/2010/1/19_International_observers_say_elections_in_Ukraine_held_at_a_high_level-_Jakob_Hedenskog.html
Despite warnings of large-scale election fraud in the days leading up to Sunday’s vote, officials and international election observers have said the ballot was fair and orderly. The preliminary report of the International Election Observation Mission (OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, European Parliament Mps, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) concluded that the first round of the presidential elections in Ukraine was held in accordance with the majority of obligations taken within the framework of the OSCE and Council of Europe.
Here's the report. It says that, although there were still some problems, the elections were generally fair and transparent: http://www.enemo.eu/press/Ukraine%202010_ENEMOFinalReport.pdf
ENEMO observers note that in general the Central Election Commission (CEC) has functioned in a professional, transparent and timely manner. However, throughout these elections the CEC continued its practice of adopting decisions in closed meetings to which observers were not allowed. In addition, CEC has repeatedly failed to issue clear and consistent instructions regarding voter registration during Election Day and mobile voting procedures, which lead to their different implementations by lower-level election commissions across oblasts.
On February 25, 2010 Victor Yanukovich was sworn in as the new President of Ukraine following the final tabulation of results by the Central Election Commission. Prior to that the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine considered a complaint made by the runner-up candidate Yulia Tymoshenko regarding alleged violations of the voting procedures in several oblasts. However, the Court did not have the chance to make a formal decision because the plaintiff dropped the case. ENEMO observers reported that the contestation took place in a climate free of pressure and in keeping with the Ukrainian laws in vigor.
And more: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/51830
The first round of Ukraine's presidential election was of high quality and showed significant progress over previous elections, meeting most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments, concluded the international election observation mission in a statement published today.
You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. You also haven't addressed the fact that it makes no sense to jail Tymoshenko after the intl community approves of the elections, and after she's already dropped her legal challenge, if all he want is to keep her from questioning the legitimacy of his presidency.
And you're wrong anyway. Tymoshenko was first charged in December of 2010
Sigh. Have you at least tried Googling it, or are you too "well-informed, thanks" for that kind of stuff? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/7717602/Ukraine-reopens-bribery-case-against-Yulia-Tymoshenko.html
Have I tried Googling it? Is that a joke? You may want to click a few of the many links I've posted and read the documents attached to them. They're full of interesting information on the topic at hand.
Tymoshenko was charged in December of 2010. Your link says: ""At the present moment, a pretrial investigation of the [2005] case has been resumed," its statement said." And May of 2010 is still after February of 2010, when Tymoshenko dropped her legal challenge to Yanukovych's election.
Lexis Nexis.
LexisNexis, the law research tool? I didn't think they do world news, and I'm struggling to find it.
(http://i.imgur.com/LzLrWYX.png)
I thought the democratically elected government of Ukraine voted to get rid of the president and replace him with a provisional one until the people of Ukraine can vote on who should run their country.
Russia then invaded and occupied Ukraine because it saw its interests being threatened. That's the coup.
That's certainly the West's viewpoint. Russia claims that the vote to oust Yanukovych was unconstitutional and illegal, and that it was basically coerced by an angry mob. I dunno shit about Ukraine's legal system/constitution, though, so I don't have much of an opinion on that. But, I can understand how Russia would see the new government as the coup. It seems like it's just a matter of perspective.
-
Or, she stopped wearing makeup.
Which then caused her face to swell to twice its size, turn purple and crumble. If makeup can do that to a woman, we could get you looking like Orlando Bloom.
You'd be surprised what makeup can do:
(http://blog.themodelstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Celebrities-without-makeup-30.jpg)
(http://web-images.chacha.com/images/galleryimage1890398534-feb-5-2012-600x450.jpg)
-
I've already provided you with evidence that international monitors approved the 2010 elections.
That is still irrelevant to your claim. Why are you so afraid of backing off from it?
Have I tried Googling it? Is that a joke?
Well, if you tried Googling it, you'd know that my date of 12th May 2010 is not "wrong", as you alleged. Therefore, it's not a joke, and no, you did not try. For shame.
(http://i.imgur.com/LzLrWYX.png)
Cherry-picking articles from a keyword-based search will not replace the value of reading the news daily. You should try it sometime.
It does explain a lot about your attitude, though.
-
Also, she's really, really hot.
2old
-
None. If we left them alone, they would be so busy squabbling with their neighbours they wouldn't give us a second thought.
I reemphasise my point about you thinking we live in a bubble of unicorns and rainbows. Do you honestly think the situation in the middle east would be contained to just Iran having a bit of a 'squabble' with its neighbours?
We live in a world of survival, if we just sat in the corner of the playground and let all the bullies dominate eventually the bullies will take your sandwiches because they've got no one else to pick on.
If everyone had your attitude at the start of WW2 we would all have blond hair, blue eyes and speak German.
-
That's certainly the West's viewpoint. Russia claims that the vote to oust Yanukovych was unconstitutional and illegal, and that it was basically coerced by an angry mob. I dunno shit about Ukraine's legal system/constitution, though, so I don't have much of an opinion on that. But, I can understand how Russia would see the new government as the coup. It seems like it's just a matter of perspective.
The default 'western bias' view again. Confirmation bias is strong in this one.
If the military came along and overthrew the government through a coup then I would agree with your stand point.
However the facts speak for them self Ukraines democratically elected government voted to get rid of the president and have a general election. That may have been spurred by the protest going on in the streets of Kiev but, I say it again, the democratically elected government of Ukraine decided to listen to those protesters and remove him from power.
-
Not to mention the introduction of hilariously draconian laws on the 16th of January (among other things, it became illegal to wear a helmet outdoors or drive in a convoy of more than 5 dars) that basically bypassed parliament. The overthrow of Yanukovich was legitimate, no matter what side you look at it from.
-
We live in a world of survival, if we just sat in the corner of the playground and let all the bullies dominate eventually the bullies will take your sandwiches because they've got no one else to pick on.
We are the playground bullies. We are the one with all the sandwiches.
If everyone had your attitude at the start of WW2 we would all have blond hair, blue eyes and speak German.
This is absolute horseshit. Hitler didn't want a war with Britain. He admired the British. As for this blonde hair blues eyes propaganda, no, Hitler himself had neither. What he would have prevented was mass immigration from all over the world to European homelands. I have a problem seeing a downside to that.
-
This is absolute horseshit. Hitler didn't want a war with Britain. He admired the British.
Is that why he bombed the crap out of England for so long?
-
To be fair Britain attacked Germany first, but it seems unlikely that Germany would have kept peace with Britain forever.
-
This is absolute horseshit. Hitler didn't want a war with Britain. He admired the British.
Is that why he bombed the crap out of England for so long?
You're an idiot.
To be fair Britain attacked Germany first, but it seems unlikely that Germany would have kept peace with Britain forever.
Apparently Britain wasn't on the agenda at all. He actually wanted Britain onside. There were certainly no plans to attack. His admiration for the British is well documented.
-
We live in a world of survival, if we just sat in the corner of the playground and let all the bullies dominate eventually the bullies will take your sandwiches because they've got no one else to pick on.
We are the playground bullies. We are the one with all the sandwiches.
Maybe we are, I'm sick of America trying to force their form of democracy down everyone's throat. However the alternative is that we become the victim and become bullied by the likes of Russia and China (Or Iran if you had your way). I'd rather be the cat and not the mouse thank you.
If everyone had your attitude at the start of WW2 we would all have blond hair, blue eyes and speak German.
This is absolute horseshit. Hitler didn't want a war with Britain. He admired the British. As for this blonde hair blues eyes propaganda, no, Hitler himself had neither. What he would have prevented was mass immigration from all over the world to European homelands. I have a problem seeing a downside to that.
No Hitler wasn't interested in taking over Europe at all. All he wanted to do was take over Poland, Austria and Czechoslovakia to expand the German state. He didn't invade the rest of Europe that was 'minding its own business' did he?..... I mean Russia who helped invade Poland at the beginning of the war (and were good mates with Germany) didn't get invaded by Germany did they?........ Oh wait ......yes they did, shit. I guess Germany would have still left us alone eh because, you know, we were pretty pally with Germany after we beat them in the first world war.
Seriously you're still living in that bubble of unicorns and rainbows...
-
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.
-
We have no business in Eastern block politics. We aren't the world police.
Unless you plan on getting the UK to quit NATO and the UN(SC), then yes, you are part of the world police. Sorry if this upsets you.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Flag_of_Transnistria_%28state%29.svg/125px-Flag_of_Transnistria_%28state%29.svg.png)
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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiIwOAoCYAAtdV7.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
You are one of the duped minority listening to the hysterical rantings of plonkers like Hague.
-
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.
-
I can't stand Hague, Cameron or most politicians, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
So brave.
-
Well, back on topic. Unfortunately at this point Ukraine is pretty much toast. NATO isn't going to help them because no one wants to see WWIII. This is going to turn into Grade A cold war.
-
No, the US and UK will make a lot of noise, be ignored and then skulk off with their tails between their legs. This one is over. Putin 1 - 0 Western Drama Queens.
-
No, the US and UK will make a lot of noise, be ignored and then skulk off with their tails between their legs. This one is over. Putin 1 - 0 Western Drama Queens.
You just agreed with me, so why'd you start your post off with "no"? Ah, I already know, it's because your obligated to disagree with the nearest post. Sometimes without even reading it!
-
The no, is because it won't be a cold war. It'll be forgotten about very quickly.
-
The no, is because it won't be a cold war. It'll be forgotten about very quickly.
It'll be cold war. It has always been cold war. The idea that the cold war somehow stopped after the USSR fell is sticking your head in the sand. Russia's constant "helping" of the countries on its border is just the times when the war warms up a bit. Most of the media has already forgotten how it was when Russia was "helping" Georgia. Russia has been, and will continue to be, at odds with NATO. It threatened to nuke Ukraine in 2008 if they joined NATO.
-
You don't have to send NATO in to do something.
I wait with abated breath to see how the EU and the US will respond.
Economically Russia isn't in a good position. It relies on the EU and the US for a great deal of its economy (as do we). After this little episode I can see EU countries becoming less reliant on Russia for trade.
Russia may have shot itself in the foot.
-
It threatened to nuke Ukraine in 2008 if they joined NATO.
Just last week Ukraine threatened Russia with nuclear weapons despite the obvious handicap of it not having any.
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/ukraine-leader-threatens-russia-with-nuclear-weapons/78181
Threats are hardly actions.
You don't have to send NATO in to do something.
I wait with abated breath to see how the EU and the US will respond.
Economically Russia isn't in a good position. It relies on the EU and the US for a great deal of its economy (as do we). After this little episode I can see EU countries becoming less reliant on Russia for trade.
Russia may have shot itself in the foot.
The UK has already said there won't be any trade sanctions. As has France, Germany and the rest of the EU. The US have also not put forward any. You need to read the news before forming opinions.
-
Just last week Ukraine threatened Russia with nuclear weapons despite the obvious handicap of it not having any.
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/ukraine-leader-threatens-russia-with-nuclear-weapons/78181
Threats are hardly actions.
This is the strawiest of straw man arguments.
-
The UK has already said there won't be any trade sanctions. As has France, Germany and the rest of the EU. The US have also not put forward any. You need to read the news before forming opinions.
I said the EU will become less reliant on Russia for trade because of this little episode. Russia has shot itself in the foot. I think the EU has learnt a lesson. I said nothing about trade sanctions.
I also said I wait with abated breath at what the EU and the US is going to do.
I think you should read my post before forming an opinion.
-
The UK has already said there won't be any trade sanctions. As has France, Germany and the rest of the EU. The US have also not put forward any. You need to read the news before forming opinions.
I said the EU will become less reliant on Russia for trade because of this little episode. Russia has shot itself in the foot. I think the EU has learnt a lesson. I said nothing about trade sanctions.
I also said I wait with abated breath at what the EU and the US is going to do.
I think you should read my post before forming an opinion.
I ignored your 'abated breath' comment last time but you then went on to bold it. The expression is 'bated breath'.
Being as most of London property is owned by wealthy Russians, I don't think we'll be doing very much at all. They own London.
-
The UK has already said there won't be any trade sanctions. As has France, Germany and the rest of the EU. The US have also not put forward any. You need to read the news before forming opinions.
I said the EU will become less reliant on Russia for trade because of this little episode. Russia has shot itself in the foot. I think the EU has learnt a lesson. I said nothing about trade sanctions.
I also said I wait with abated breath at what the EU and the US is going to do.
I think you should read my post before forming an opinion.
I ignored your 'abated breath' comment last time but you then went on to bold it. The expression is 'bated breath'.
Being as most of London property is owned by wealthy Russians, I don't think we'll be doing very much at all. They own London.
If Russians own most of London do you not see how that could be used to our advantage?
Thanks for the correction you're right it should be bated breath, however the point still stands. It's obvious you knew what I actually meant as you corrected me on it.
-
If Russians own most of London do you not see how that could be used to our advantage?
Being as our banks are banked by the value of London properties and a fall in prices would see their balance sheets shrink making them unable to cover their loans, no. There is a reason property prices in London are not allowed to fall.
-
Not that I think your assumption is workable, but I thought we were trying to reduce the value of properties in London because they're over inflated.
If anything that would go to help that situation.
-
Reducing property prices is the last thing the banks want. They have masses of mortgage loans on their books. Putting all those properties into negative equity would mean the banks couldn't cover the loans.
-
NATO isn't going to help them because no one wants to see WWIII.
Which, to be honest, I'm quite happy about. My home country would probably be one huge battlefront if this escalated.
-
NATO isn't going to help them because no one wants to see WWIII.
Which, to be honest, I'm quite happy about. My home country would probably be one huge battlefront if this escalated.
??? There isn't anyone of fighting age to protect it or get hurt. They are all safe working in every other country.
-
Reducing property prices is the last thing the banks want. They have masses of mortgage loans on their books. Putting all those properties into negative equity would mean the banks couldn't cover the loans.
Negative equity?
Banks work on Risk exposure. If the London market over inflates the Risk exposure would be huge. Although not specific to London property inflation it's one of the reasons why we had a financial melt down in 2008. Banks do not want an over inflated property market because it increases their risk exposure (although they do like to cash in on it).
However this is getting off topic again.
The EU will probably start to steer away from Russia economically because they don't want to have the same situation (where they can't do anything without hurting themselves) again.
-
Each and every aspect of the war which has been planned for a long time (see for example Sir John Hackett's books, or Caspar Weinberger's Next War, or Jan van Helsing's Third Book) has to do with the Aries-Libra axis.
1912, 1913, 1940, 1948, 1968 - years with the moon eclipses occurring on the Aries-Libra axis.
Also, the last time that four blood red moons occurred together was in 1967-1968 (in 2014 – 2015 a rare sequence of Tetrad Red Blood Moon lunar eclipses will occur on the Jewish Holidays of Passover and the Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) taking place on the Aries-Libra axis).
-
Oh dear. November has come at last.
-
sandokhan is levee. Dionysios was 17 November.
-
Yeah, November has all kinds of issues. Sandokhan is only nuts.
-
We still need Katsung to tell us how this is all an FBI trap for him.
-
There is much more to this matter...
I do agree that, to some extent, this was probably planned and is part of a larger plan. However, I do not see how Tomlinson is relevant. Could you clarify?
-
If your hand is going up my leg, certainly you are going to feel nuts.
When you had questions re: monatomic gold, I was the only one who could answer them:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58472.msg1488326#msg1488326
Each and every event which has taken place in the former Soviet Union in the past 30 years (Chernobyl, the publicity given to Yeltsin, the assasination of general A. Lebed, the rise of V. Putin) has been orchestrated by the GRU (secret service of the Soviet Army).
-
If your hand is going up my leg, certainly you are going to feel nuts.
When you had questions re: monatomic gold, I was the only one who could answer them:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58472.msg1488326#msg1488326
Each and every event which has taken place in the former Soviet Union in the past 30 years (Chernobyl, the publicity given to Yeltsin, the assasination of general A. Lebed, the rise of V. Putin) has been orchestrated by the GRU (secret service of the Soviet Army).
They cooperate closely with the other two main secret service agencies (MI6 and the Knights of Malta) in the world in order to reach a certain goal, before a certain geological/astronomical event will take place (that is why the Mount Weather complex was built).
Can you expand at all upon their specific goal? What are they trying to achieve?
-
Looks like Putin is beginning to understand that the West isn't cool with him randomly invading countries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26795627
-
America always gets her way eventually
-
Nato fears Russia could use its forces in Trans-Dniester to invade the breakaway region.
Why would they need to send in troops? Transnistria has been applying to join Russia since the USSR fell.
I hope they don't get integrated into Russia, I really want to get a Transnistria stamp on my passport.
-
Looks like Putin is beginning to understand that the West isn't cool with him randomly invading countries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26795627
The next NATO commander could be Norwegian. I think Putin fears the vikings.