Cool story, bro.
Evidence of this happening?
Additional reasons could be: (1) Armenians have had a long-standing positive relationship with Russia that precedes the last century; (2) Armenia’s behavior in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan since the 1990s is similar in motivation to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea.
Which ‘Rogue nation’ side was XT on back when this was issued:
Wrong then and likely to be shown to be wrong again over time regarding the declaration of separation from Ukraine by Crinea of February 28 2014.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Which ‘Rogue nation’ side was XT on back when this was issued:
[/QUOTE]
Pretty ironic looking at Venezuela’s shifting position, that’s for sure. So, your point is that, even though I admitted I was wrong about Iraq (a conclusion I came to literally over a decade ago at this point), that you just can’t let it go, and to you this proves…something. Did you note the UN resolution? Did you perhaps take a look at the fact that 100 nations agreed that this is a violation, while only 11 supported Russia’s actions? Did you perhaps note that even if every country that abstained had sided with Russia, that it still wouldn’t be a majority? Do you recall our little discussion about the UN and your position on majority votes in the international community? And do you see the heavy irony in all of this?
I am not saying it is happening or happened. I am saying it likely would happen in the improbable event that Crimeans decided to go forward with the futile attempt to get signatures in at least 14 of 24 Oblasts that have minute presence of Russian speaking residents.
Oh cool.
Then I can say that it’s likely that Crimea could have become independent through legal means. No evidence to support my statement, but who cares?
Personally, I think rabid space ferrets would have come down and imposed harsh martial law on the entire place, and asked for tribute in the form of all rats and snakes (cheese snake sandwiches especially), before Bruce Willis and a stalwart but eclectic team of astronauts and sanitation workers (along with a funny but tragic PETA representative explosive specialist) launched a desperate mission to save mankind by the expedient of blowing off their fingers with fire crackers. But it’s just my working theory…it might have played out slightly different.
Where do you think all those guys wearing uniforms without insignia came from?! One of them actually told a TV reporter, “I am Russian soldier!”
Huh??? If that was directed at me, I’m as pro-U.S. as it gets (hell, I live here). That doesn’t mean it’s 1983 and I also have to take the anti-Russian side in every single case.
Nope, you are off the timeline. That was not the date nor the situation that I am addressing here.
Here is how it went down:
On 03-26-2014 at 07:19 PM Human Action wrote:
On 03-27-2014 at 12:10 AM I asked Human Action:
And I posted this also at 12:10 PM: {{BBC reported on or before the 28th of February that Serhiy Tsekov, a top Crimean parliamentary said the military forces at the Parliament building were there “at the invitation of Crimean MPs and will remain” there as long as they ask them to. }}
So sticking to the facts and the dates mentioned, my answer to BrainGlutton’s question is that *‘all those guys wearing uniforms without insignia’ *came from Ukraine or Crimea. It is believable that those armed men had joined with the legislators in a a ‘popular uprising’ to separate with certainty Crimea from the unconstitutional mess in Kiev. It is false to declare that they were Russian troops.
I don’t know if Human Action has concluded that they were Russian Federation troops demanding the Crimean legislators to declare Crimea’s separation from Ukraine. That is why I asked him?
So BrainGlutton I am asking you the same question right now.
Have you concluded that it was Russian Federation troops ordering the Crimean legislative body to submit to Putin’s ultimatums at gunpoint?
Not sure why you think it might apply to you unless you’re cheerleading Putin in this thread solely because he’s doing something the US is opposed to. My response was to another poster, not you.
OK, no problem. I was the next one up the reply chain so I wasn’t sure.
On 03-27-2014 at 02:12 PM XT wrote, “Link to UN vote:” while citing:
And then at 02:21 PM XT mentions “NFBW” in conjunction with a ‘rogues gallery’ that are in my ‘corner’ and on my side:
In the above remark, XT adds nothing to the debate. So I thought it was appropriate to point out that XT’s list of ‘rogue states’ in the current situation were at least, back in 2003, absolutely correct and XT was on the side of the true ‘rogue states’ that committed an atrocity against the people of Iraq that counts deaths not terms of (one) but in (tens of thousands)
Of course we all know that XT was mistaken to have supported actions taken by the US UK and Australia, Spain and many others to violate the territorial integrity in an (actual shooting and bombing pre-meditated unlawful invasion and war) in order to force ‘regime change’ in Iraq in violation of every principle of international law and moral integrity.
But the reason that XT’s past error in judgment should be pointed out now is that XT’s record of susceptibility of being wrong to have initially supported the US UK and Spain’s invasion of Iraq is that it could be happening again with respect to what ‘actually’ went on in Crimea during the past forty days. XT is likely to be wrong again.
I see a repeat of the pro-Iraq-war tactic used during the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq being repeated here. That is the tactic to tie opposition to war or government policy to the ‘rogue’ state that the government and media are hyping to being sympathetic or favoring the ‘rogue’ states past and projected behavior.
The only irony here is the fact that XT actually supported the ‘rogue’ nations that committed one of the most blatant examples of unjustified military killing and maiming and property destruction across an international border that outdid Iraq’s 1991 invasion of Kuwait.
And in light of the ‘fact’ that Russian and Crimean pro-Russian actions have been extremely peaceful and orderly while being historically and geographically significant.
XT is not the one who should be throwing this type of slur around:
It certainly is fair to point the ‘record’ out.
And illegal.
As I’ve said about a million times in this thread, whatever happened in Iraq is irrelevant here. Was that invasion illegal? Yes. Is the Russian invasion of Crimea illegal? Yes. Full stop.
Yesterday’s vote at the UN General Assembly simply serves to illustrate what kind of countries support the invasion: the world’s worst dictatorship (North Korea), a country led by one of the world’s worst international criminals (Syria), Europe’s last dictatorship (Belarus), and other great oppressive regimes in Latin America and Africa. The overwhelming majority of the international community has not accepted Russia’s invasion of Crimea, and that is telling.
If anything, this Russian isolation is similar to the one experienced by the coalition during the Iraq invasion. Do you not see the similarity?
Pretty sure you’re ESL, so you may not know: ‘rogues gallery’, coined in 1855, is an idiomatic expression, meaning “a coterie of undesirable people”. It comes from the practice of police keeping portraits of criminals on file to show victims, for the purposes of identification. It is in no way related to the term ‘rogue state’, which was coined in the '90s.
With that cleared up, do you have a position on this UN resolution? Telling XT he was wrong 11 years ago doesn’t count.
If you’re referring to their stance on the Iraq War, your point is against utterly silly, because
-
At the time it wasn’t just THOSE countries opposed to invading Iraq, it was also most of the countries in the world.
-
Just because Cuba was right about Iraq does not mean they are right about Crimea, as is obvious to anyone over four years of age, including yourself.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
In the above remark, XT adds nothing to the debate.
[/QUOTE]
I added the link to the UN vote which you not so cleverly decided to ignore in your pursuit of once again reiterating that 11 years ago when I supported the Iraq war I was wrong, having admitted to this many times in the past. BTW, I didn’t say ‘rogue states’, so your entire point here is, again, from your own inability to read with comprehension what someone wrote and cite it clearly.
Except we aren’t discussing Iraq. I know that you and Red WANT to talk about Iraq, because apparently to you playing the Iraqi card is some sort of win. Basically, it shows how weak your position is that you are unwilling to deal with THIS situation as it is, and need to resort to talking about Iraq as if this situation and Iraq were equivalent…well, except that this time Russia is obviously right of course.
So, basically your assertion is that, because I was wrong 11 years ago I’m wrong this time too. And because I was wrong then 100 other countries, who listen to me diligently and follow my own predictions, they are wrong too…and Russia is right. Iraq and all. Oh, did you mention Iraq and me being wrong? Shocking…you’ve never (overplayed) THAT card before (in every discussion about every subject you chime in on).
No need to actually deal with the UN vote I linked too when you can just bring up Iraq again, right?
I see someone (namely you, since you might miss the reference) trying with all their might to NOT answer a simple question and instead to muddy the waters on a completely off thread topic (normally referred to as a ‘hijack’ of the thread).
Oh, I’m sure you do. And for whatever reason, the Mods have allowed it so I guess it’s cool. Happily, I don’t think anyone (well, maybe Red) fails to see through so ridiculous an attempt to actually answer a straightforward question and deal with the UN vote, handwaving and muddying the waters for all you are worth.
Not to mention that the the whole “peaceful and orderly” issue there is thanks to the unbelievable restraint by the Ukrainian people. I’m shocked there is not much more civil strife against “Russian Speakers” throughout the country.
No, Stalin was a much more effective leader than Putin has been.
Anyway, Putin has limited control over the Russian majority in Crimea. If they choose to send the Tartars and Ukrainians packing, there is little that he can do except make certain that they aren’t massacred instead of simply being driven from their homes and businesses. That he would involve his questionably talented military what could easily turn into an ethnically based massacre is a sign of how poor his leadership really has been.
But, as somebody on here has already said, it appears that the Ukrainians seemingly have little interest in maintain their nation as an independent entity. They certainly haven’t been forcibly disarming the “Russian speaking” thugs setting up roadblocks in their country. Nor have they let Russia know that they would use force to resist the annexation of Crimea.
Frankly, NATO should reinforce its member states bordering the area and then let the Russians know that movement any further will result in their forces being attacked. They should then sit back and watch while Russia realizes (yet again) why it spun off Ukraine 22 years ago.
Lets be clear. I’m not telling XT that he was wrong in 2003 - he has admitted he was wrong. And that regardless of status as a rogue state for whatever reason - rogue states can be right. XT’s horrendous mistake in 2003 and subsequent attempt at a personal slur toward me is a fine example of the argument style of anti-Russian opinion holders.
If you look back in context of this particular subplot it was XT that launched the rogue state broadside while mentioning my good name in the process.