Pffft. He wants to make like this is an issue between Russia and the US. In fact, it’s an issue between Russia and most of the rest of the world, especially the Europeans. One should not be fooled by Russian propaganda.
It shouldn’t need explanation but here you are.
This is not in response to your incorrect notion that this situation in Ukraine has little to nothing to do with the US. If the US walked away and claimed no interest in this situation you would be correct. But that is not what is going on. The US is very much involved and in harmony with the rest of the EU prior to, during and after the fall of the Yanukovich government.
On 3/28 you complained that U.S. transgressions in the past should not be part of the debate on Ukraine. Then on 03/31 you posted some guy on a CNN site who cited as part of his main theme in his assessment of the current situation in Ukraine that Russia has started three wars in the past 'to solve domestic problems" and that the so called invasion of Crimea is a now a continuation of a tradition in Russia where leaders start wars to cover up political problems.
Why the double standard? Why the do as I say, not as I do? Why did you bring Russia’s past involvement in unrelated and dissimilar wars into this?
So the double standard is that you can bring up the bogus allegations of Russia’s past transgressions of starting wars in order to solve their internal domestic problems, but we are not supposed to bring up the facts that Ukraine’s internal political turmoil has been influenced by several nations that have a past history of defying legal principles of territorial integrity and compliance with international law when it suits their interests to violate them and many human beings died and suffered as a result. You know which nations toss the rule of law out the window when there’s something of value to go after inside the territorial boundaries of other nations.
All those nations have a hand in the mess in Kiev over this past fall and winter and going way back to the Orange Revolution. But we can’t bring up their past flagrant and seriously more deadly transgressions and violations of international law in other parts of the world.
But you can bring up some bogus opinion that Russians have a tradition of "STARTING WARS’ for no other reason but to cover up domestic problems so Putin and Medvedev can remain popular.
Under this theory of Russian war-starting ‘tradition’ it must have been the Kremlin that violently drove Yanukovich from office so they could have a pretext to invade and grab Crimea forcing a referendum under the barrel of Russian guns, mostly because Putin was having problems at home with his popularity.
I don’t buy it. You apparently do. But any nation involved in any aspect of the situation in Ukraine should have its record of past transgressions fully blended into the debate.
Mostly because it will be quicker to realize that ‘life goes on’ and the rule of law does not end if and when major powers act in ways contrary to established principles of law and statehood.
This ‘crisis’ is far less damaging to people on the whole compared to past transgressions. Why not buck up and live with reality instead of fabricating stories about Russia as the guy at CNN has done.
There are many issues between Russia and the US including dealing with this one. He’s talking about accepting the reality that Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine.
Ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, the removal of the remaining CW from Syria, the overland supply route into and out of Afghanistan, etc and other issues are in fact primarily between Russia and the US.
Propaganda to achieve what? Here is one thing the Russian official said, *“Trying to demonstrate how unhappy it is with the exercise of free will by the population of Crimea and the decisions we took related to it, Washington is ruining contacts even in places where continuing dialogue is in their own interests.” *
Is it possible in your that the US could be ruining contacts in places where continuing dialogue is in their own interests. And after all as he also pointed out, like it or not, the train has left the station, here:
The train has already departed and our government and the EU and ‘the rest of the world’ know it.
Funny, I could swear that the Iraq train departed 11 years ago, and yet you’ve tried to board it several times in this thread
Well, hopefully some Ukrainians will have a childish tantrum and blow up sections of the oil pipeline. See how that “helps things”.
Not sure why you feel the need to dwell on something that no one here is arguing against. Actually, I do know why, but that is more an issue for this thread.
But the fact remains that even though Russia is going to get to keep Crimea, it will have to live with the consequences. All the countries in Europe will now look at Russia differently. All future dealings with Putin will be seen thru the prism of their illegal land grab. He may have bolstered his political position at home, but he has diminished his influence in the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
It shouldn’t need explanation but here you are.
[/QUOTE]
You wouldn’t need to if you wrote clearly, concisely and consistently and debated in good faith. Sadly, you don’t so you need to explain yourself when you translate whatever it is you think in into standard English.
Um…so then what was the point? Answer…clearly there wasn’t one.
No, that’s not what I was complaining about nor my point. You are, once again, either unable to read with comprehension or you are deliberately distorting what I said…or both.
However, this still doesn’t connect the dots. So, I’m still back to clearly, there was no point in your quoting those two things from me and then attempting to tie them together.
See why you need to explain things? Oh, me either, since your explanation here is meaningless and explains nothing.
What double standard? I asked why people were hijacking the thread to talk about fucking Iraq. Then I posted an opinion piece where you took exception for clearly semantic and ridiculous reasons to dismiss without having to bother actually addressing the rest of the piece less THE ONE FUCKING LINE IN IT THAT TALKED ABOUT GEORGIA…A SUBJECT WE AREN’T FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD. :smack:
Leaving aside your double standard horseshit, I’ll just point out that you didn’t bring up any of this…you simply dismissed the cite on grounds that it was so obviously biased against Russia (because of the word ‘invasion’ :rolleyes:). And now you want to basically do a Redfury and hand wave away what’s happening in the Ukraine because the US did bad things in the past.
You do understand that I didn’t write that opinion piece, right? And that it was one line of one paragraph in it…and that to me it’s clear that, as has been shown over and over again, your ability to read what others (in this case the writer for CNN, who isn’t XT) write and comprehend it is pretty tenuous.
As in Georgia, they obviously saw the opportunity and grabbed it with both hands. Your ridiculous strawman antics don’t hide that…nor was that what the guy who wrote the CNN article was even remotely getting at when he was talking about a trend in Russia’s behavior wrt it’s former republics and territories. It’s hard to tell whether you are strawmaning for exaggeration and hyperbole, or you really don’t get it because, well, it’s clear that half the time you really DON’T get what others write.
I was able to read (and comprehend) more than one sentence in that article. Clearly, you weren’t. As for blending in ‘past transgressions’, feel free…it would actually be part of this fucking debate, unlike the Iraq/Evil US horseshit. What past transgressions were you talking about? Please…PLEASE, for the love of small furry animals…be fucking concise. List them, say what you think they are.
Yeah, but that doesn’t let Russia off the hook. Oh, I assume you are talking about Russia here…right?
Why not admit that what Russia did was strong arm the Ukraine in order to snag a large piece of land for itself, and actually debate THAT in good faith, instead of attempting to handwave it away by saying in essence ‘well, the US invaded Iraq, so that was much worse’? We aren’t fucking talking about Iraq here…did you notice? We are talking about Russia, invading the Ukraine and snagging a chunk of their territory, and how the west will respond. See? Nothing to do with Iraq in there. Nothing to do with Georgia either, though that’s less a hijack (and jack off) than bringing up Iraq over and over and over and over and over…(insert ‘over’ ad nauseam) in what is clearly an effort to not bother addressing what’s actually going on and what Russia is really doing.
While it’s working well enough with Redfury and maybe a few other posters, here’s a news flash…it’s not working with most of the rest, who can see through such transparent horseshit for what it is.
On 03-18-2014 at 12:35 PM I wrote:
On 03-18-2014 at 04:52 PM **XT replied **to what I wrote with a fuss about me decrying something:
Where did I ‘decry’ the fact that the Soviet Union arbitrarily gave the Crimea to the Ukraine? And I have no idea where XT acquired the rest of his rant. Do we have to mention every conflict since the origin of mankind when we discuss something?
It is difficult to take XT seriously in any discussion since he flies off the handle so easily. In the above exchange you will note that I did not ‘decry’ the fact I cited, I wrote that the Crimea Referendum was ‘more democratic’ than having Khrushchev hand it off as a gift. You will notice that XT does not respond to the point I made. He just rants on about how little I know.
So I wonder if XT thinks the 1954 decision was more democratic than the referendum this year with regards to Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine and Russia.
Actually, what is difficult to take seriously is the idea that just because something is democratic that it’s good. There are any number of ways for the democratic process to produce results that are either bad, illegal or both. Especially when said democratic process takes place under conditions similar to that in Crimea during their recent referendum. That is one reason Obama does not recognize the results of that referendum as being valid, as do most of us posting in this thread.
Good grief. :smack:…:smack::smack::smack: I think the only way to really talk to you is in that Pit Thread.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
On 03-18-2014 at 04:52 PM XT replied to what I wrote with a fuss about me decrying something:
[/QUOTE]
Who are you talking to here? Do you feel that speaking in the 3rd person helps your case in some obscure way? 
In the post you quoted from yourself, silly rabbit. ‘The method yesterday to leave Ukraine’s borders was a hell of a lot more democratic than the method that joined Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. At that time the Premier of the USSR gave Crimea to Ukraine as a gift.’? See? You are decrying how the Crimea was given to the Ukraine RIGHT THERE IN WHAT YOU QUOTED…and, of course, I quoted the same exact thing when I replies, which, for most, would have been a good clue as to what I was talking about. Of course, I wasn’t speaking in the 3rd person but actually talking DIRECTLY TO YOU. You might want to give that a try sometime.
I actually think that there is only one person who couldn’t follow along with what I was writing there. Some may not have agreed, but clearly only you couldn’t grasp the connection. Probably, again, because I wasn’t speaking in the 3rd person but actually writing directly at you. I’m unsure who you are speaking to here, but I doubt there is a mass of people perplexed by what I wrote or it’s intent. Again, they may (hell, probably don’t) agree with me much, but at least they can freaking follow along.
Well, you could always ask him I guess. Of course, the question itself is idiotic, but instead of weaseling about in this fashion you could ASK ME what I think of how the Crimea was arbitrarily given to the Ukraine at the whim of a Soviet premier.
It’s a childish argument in order to distract attention from the matter at hand.
Mom: Billy, stop taking your sister’s toys.
Billy: But mom, Joey took bigger toys from me last year!
On 04-05-2014 at 01:21 PM XT wrote:
There is no doubt that Georgia started the war. Who can tell if XT accepts the EU Commission on that. However XT continues to believe in the ‘baiting’ game. I wonder where XT’s source for that comes from?
XT is not getting it from the EU Commission report:
{{ 20.) At least as far as the initial phase of the conflict is concerned, an additional legal question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified. Again the answer is in the negative.’ There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation.
Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August could not be substantiated by the Mission.
It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack, in spite of certain elements and equipment having been made readily available.
**There is also no evidence to support any claims that Russian peacekeeping units in South Ossetia were in flagrant breach of their obligations **under relevant international agreements such as the Sochi Agreement and thus may have forfeited their international legal status.
Consequently, the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law. }}
Georgia started the war. It was not anything like XT’s CNN dude who says Russia started it to cover up domestic problems.
There is no explanation of how stating an undisputed historical fact is Decrying it. We will likely never get an answer to that.
And all those other words from XT but no answer yet on if he thinks the referendum this year in Crimea was more democratic than the 1954 gift giving means which set Crimea into its previous relationship with Ukraine.
Just an observation for the record.
How do you determine from the outside if you think it will be bad, that the democratic result in Crimea wiil he bad for most of the inhabitants of Crimea?
Conditions may even be improving for the Tatars in separating from Ukraine.
Here’s a report on recent developments going on with the Tatar community.
http://mbox.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/04/01/putin-look-crimea-tatar-rehabilitation.html
That looks a lot like decrying to me.
That definitely looks like decrying.
Well, the problem is that is wasn’t a democratic result.
And if the current status of Russia is anything to go by, the recent “democratic result” in Crimea will be the last taste of democracy that Crimeans will have in decades.
Yes that is criticizing/decrying that Khrushchev fucked up when he gave a piece of Russia away and the Russians living there did not have a say living under Soviet oppression and dictatorship …
But that is not what XT wrote on 03-18-2014 at 04:52 PM When he wrote that I ‘decry the fact that the Soviet Union arbitrarily gave the Crimea to the Ukraine’ as if I was being ‘two-faced’ about it.
As you have pointed out on 03-06-2014 07:26 AM I wrote, "Perhaps the thread could be retitled:
There also, as you could see if you wanted to, that I am not simply ‘DECRYING THE FACT’ that Crimea was arbitrarily given away as XT later derailed my point in response to my 03-18-2014 at 12:35 PM post (see below). I was pointing out the FACT that *“the Russians living there did not have a say living under Soviet oppression and dictatorship at the time.” * in the suggested ‘context’ of being compared to the potentially ‘corrective’ MORE DEMOCRATIC method than that which we are currently I wish are supposed to be discussing here.
I wrote on 03-18-2014 at 12:35 PM:
Rather than ‘argue’ or ‘debate’ or discuss my point in a reasonable way, it is clear that XT’s intent was to detour the discussion about me being ‘two-faced’ about something.
Do you see the word “METHOD” in what follows?
As I have been pointing out, and what I do actually decry is that XT, and now you have appear to have no intent in discussing or challenging my valid point in this OP.
That point is, now in question form, do you think the **‘method’ **then (Decried or not Decried) in 1954 was systematically ‘more’ democratic or ‘less’ democratic than the method used last month in Crimea?
Including connotative distractions such as “two-faced” in the discussion is a clever tool used here, but it is nowhere to be found in fair and reasonable debate or discussion about things.
I would think that you would be sympathetic to the FACT that the Russians living in Crimea in 1954 and since, did not have a democratic say about being subjected to the constitutional rule by Ukraine.
What then is the point in backing up another one of XT’s meaningless and distracting replies to me?
My point and question is:
Do you think the ‘method’ used last month in Crimea was “MORE” or “LESS” democratic than the ‘method’ used in 1954?
You seem to be saying it was at least a ‘taste’ of democracy. So can we take that as a yes… the referendum last month was ‘more’ democratic than when Khrushchev just arbitrarily gave Crimea away in 1954?
No no here cares about that childish question.