Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #60 on: March 06, 2014, 05:38:17 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 05:51:32 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #61 on: March 06, 2014, 12:19:40 PM »
Quote
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.


Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #62 on: March 06, 2014, 02:25:23 PM »
Quote
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.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12611
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #63 on: March 06, 2014, 06:46:23 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 06:56:20 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #64 on: March 06, 2014, 08:38:21 PM »
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.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Thork

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #65 on: March 06, 2014, 08:44:08 PM »
Cameron just will not shut his face. :(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26475630

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2014, 08:44:58 PM »
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.

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #67 on: March 06, 2014, 08:45:45 PM »
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.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12611
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #68 on: March 06, 2014, 08:46:37 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 08:51:27 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Thork

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #69 on: March 06, 2014, 08:50:39 PM »
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.

Thork

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #70 on: March 06, 2014, 08:57:52 PM »



2010


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?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12611
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #71 on: March 06, 2014, 09:00:39 PM »
She developed some chronic back problem which was not properly treated. I imagine that contributed to her fatigued look.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5068
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #72 on: March 06, 2014, 09:02:02 PM »
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.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #73 on: March 06, 2014, 09:02:54 PM »
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.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2014, 09:08:55 PM »
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.

Thork

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #75 on: March 06, 2014, 09:19:42 PM »
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.

Thork

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #76 on: March 06, 2014, 09:20:42 PM »
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?

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #77 on: March 06, 2014, 09:41:19 PM »
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.


Thork

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #78 on: March 06, 2014, 09:48:02 PM »
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.


Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Reply #79 on: March 06, 2014, 10:10:35 PM »
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?