From that paragraph (my comments are in parentheses): year-round employment having to do with tourism is 4% - (that’s understandably low, since Crimea is a seasonal place. In the winter it is not really a “resort”). In the summer you get another 18% population into full tourism employment. Seasonal income from tourism is significant for 21% of the population directly (4%+18%=22%), and for 50-60% indirectly (I presume those that serve or receive money from those that are employed with tourism are counted there). For 70% of people who are employed in seasonal tourism industry, the job/income is supplemental to their main job.
Well, I am not arguing it’s small potatoes but if we are being generous with the spinoff numbers, I am betting the miners and steel workers spread their money around too. It is bizarre how straightforward GDP % by sector doesn’t seem easily findable.
Does it make you feel good to not recognize that illegal act while you handwave away the real violence that precipitated and triggered it.
Although it was illegal in an international law framework, Crimea was annexed with a very limited amount of violence. The coup of the sitting president certainly created much more viokence.
Apparently its ok to handwave away certain violence if the US and EU leaders tell you to, and the rest of the world in your mind obey them.
I’ve handwaved away nothing. And you continue to ignore the violence that erupted in the East of Ukraine after the illegal referendum in Crimea. They are not unrelated.
I’m of no illusion that good guys are overly present in Ukraine. Same as in Egypt, where you handwaved away the violence that happened and continues to happen there.
I personally think that the violence in East Ukraine wouldn’t have happened if Russia hadn’t shown such obvious support for separatists and taken Crimea. That’s not to excuse the Kiev revolt/coup and how it tweaked Russia. But Russia didn’t have to go balls deep propaganda-wise and then hang East Ukraine separatists out to dry. Remind anyone of another super power?
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Does it make you feel good to not recognize that illegal act while you handwave away the real violence that precipitated and triggered it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, there goes another irony meter! I mean, this is comedy gold.
You mean the coup sparked by the violence by the government and your buddy against the protesters? THAT coup? Yeah, it’s a funny old world, isn’t it? But way to ‘handwave away the real violence that precipitated and triggered it’ while feeling good about the stubborn dwelling on the legality aspect. I couldn’t write better straight lines for you if I tried.
Apparently it’s ok to handwave away a government using draconian measures to suppress protest as long as you don’t force him to flee his elected office, amIrightyoubetchaehe?
But you said I was handwaving away the scarcely-violent illegal act that was triggered by what you claim to not be handwaving away. That makes no sense.
You can keep hand-waving away the protesters’ role in initiating the major riots on February 18 but tom&debb provided a link that tells why you would be wrong.
On 05-23-2014 at 05:56 PM tomndebb posted this link:
When Tomndebb posts a link it must meet John Mace’s authoritative or determinative standards.
This link posted by tomndebb tells us how the worst day of rioting began.
"The initial riots **began on 18 February 2014 **when some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters in Kiev advanced on Ukraine’s parliament
I do not consider 20,000 advancing on the Parliament Building with the intent of removing the constitution and replacing it with another to be ‘peaceful protest’. Nineteen protestors and ten police officers lost their lives on February 18th. With that many police officers getting killed when 20,000 are coming at them.
Not sure why you cut your quote off there. Actually, I no exactly why you did. Here is the rest:
Your bias makes you want to blame the protesters, but it’s unclear which side started things, or if both sides did. Had this happened in the US, you’d be ranting against the police.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
You can keep hand-waving away the protesters’ role in initiating the major riots on February 18 but tom&debb provided a link that tells why you would be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, I provided you with a timeline and details of how this all spun out like 20 pages ago from multiple sources. I’m handwaving nothing away. It’s YOU who is doing the dance and shuffle here. I don’t know who you think you are fooling with this horseshit, but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear to be anyone following along with the thread.
Who are you quoting as saying ‘peaceful protest’ there? Can I get a cite of someone who you are quoting there please, because if not I’m thinking your post needs to be reported to the Mods as a violation of board and forum rules. Thanks in advance for that.
Not blaming the peaceful protesters. The report you just provided says this about the 20,000 non-peaceful protesters that were advancing toward the Parliament Building:
(1) “police blocked their path”. Are the police to blame for guarding the nation’s Parliament and constitution. Thirteen Police died on February 18th trying to stop the “thousands of demonstrators, who fought back with crude weapons, firearms, and improvised explosives.” Nineteen protesters were killed on February 18 in the clash.
(2) “in an attempt to repel thousands of demonstrators” the police used live ammo.
Who here would blame police guarding your nation’s parliament from such an advance by thousands armed with…
(3) “crude weapons, firearms, and improvised explosives” were used in the advance toward the Parliment that was being guarded by the police. It is impossible to blame both sides when one side was advancing and using deadly weapons during that advance.
I Demoinstrated in peaceful protest against the pending US and UK invasion of Iraq. We marched peacefully after a rally on the Mall past the US Capitol. Some yahoo’s I heard later were committing violence - breaking windows - fighting with police. If they got knocked on their heads by police with billy clubs for breaking laws and destroying property they deserve every knot on the head they get. If they brought “crude weapons, firearms, and improvised explosives” and used them on the police - lethal force against them is proper if a police officer’s life is threatened.
On February 18th in Kiev it is clear that the police attemting to stop an advance by 20,000 armed and angry protesters met deadly force with deadly force. The advancing party was at fault in February 18th.
The protests ‘turned violent’ when the protesters tried to gain entry to the Parliament. If both sides are to be judged as equally to blame. To accept equal blame it would have to be acceptable to let 20,000 to enter parliament - some with weapons and Molotov cocktails.
Sorry I won’t accept that no matter how many want it to be that way,
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I Demoinstrated in peaceful protest against the pending US and UK invasion of Iraq. We marched peacefully after a rally on the Mall past the US Capitol. Some yahoo’s I heard later were committing violence - breaking windows - fighting with police. If they got knocked on their heads by police with billy clubs for breaking laws and destroying property they deserve every knot on the head they get. If they brought “crude weapons, firearms, and improvised explosives” and used them on the police - lethal force against them is proper if a police officer’s life is threatened.
[/QUOTE]
And what if the government first instituted ‘draconian’ measures to stifle the protests? Would the demonstrators be justified, in your mind, at that point in upping things? How about if the police started using lethal force to, again, stifle protest? Would the protesters be justified then? When WOULD the protesters be justified, in your mind? Should they have been simply cowed initially when the first draconian measures started because, you know, the president guy WAS elected and all? Or should they have been cowed when the government resorted to using lethal force?
Hm, well, I wonder why? What do you suppose happened before the 18th of February? Well, who knows, right? Oh, wait…XT provided this cite like 20 pages ago. Maybe we should take a look?
Granted, this is from the notoriously pro-US site al Jezeera…
See, this is your continued spin. What ACTUALLY happened, in the real universe, is that the protests turned violent when the government tried to crack down on the protests, and used ‘draconian’ measures to attempt to stifle it. A bunch of stuff happened BEFORE the 18th of Feb that you simply can’t seem to grasp, or more likely runs contrary to your narrative of events in your own mind.
That’s the first honest thing you’ve said in this thread. But it’s really moot, since we all know you won’t accept reality, and will spin things to be the way you wanted them to be all along. The reality is the situation was fucked up every way it could be, and everything is shades of gray. You want to spin reality to be black and white, with the narrative YOU want it to be, and it just doesn’t work that way.
I know there was violence and issues from both sides prior to the 18th, but the massive outbreak in violence to nearly a hundred deaths in the 48 hours that followed that particular date when nine police were killed for blocking 20,000 armed protesters from seizing the parliament is a critical moment for my judgment of the matter. Nothing in my concept of law and civilty justified protesters attempting to occupy the equivalent of the US Capitol. Attempting that with Molotov cocktails in hand and firearms used to kill police one should know they might get killed in the process. And draconian measures by the government does not in my justify in any way 20,000 massing and advancing on the parliament.
Was the cause worth ‘advancing’ toward the Parliament to change the constitution by mob rule. What were they thinking.
That ‘advance’ was an offense on the non-violent protesters as well as the rest of the citizenry that voted in the government this mob had not set about deposing.
The over-reaction by police was an offense too but when 9 of their own were killed the over-reaction must be seen in that context - the context of the advance of 20,000.
But if this kind of massive lawless behavior is justified in your view of reality then you’d tell me that it would be fine with you to see the US Congress siezed by a violent mob that originally was upset over trade deals the President didnt make.
I don’t accept your view of the events in Ukraine and have seen no convincing argument that both sides are equally to blame. The mob advancing against an elected government was wrong. And it was stupid. They should have found a peaceful way to protest - as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have shown.
I mean, this is comedy gold.