It reminds me of a Tintin album.
1 Like
Sure, if you look at Russian actions from a non-Russian point of view. But if you look at what Ukraine needs, what it needs most of all is probably a direction that all Ukrainians can agree on. And right now they canât. Half wants to be BFFs with Russia, the other half wants to get closer with the EU. This is already the second revolution theyâve had about this exact topic in a couple of years.
I want Ukraine to have the freedom to get closer with the EU, if thatâs what they want. And right now they canât because while half of the population wants that, the other half doesnât. Your comparison to Sudetenland holds no water, because Czechoslovakia didnât have a string of revolutions about the direction of the country. And itâs unwarranted too, because Iâm not defending Russian aggression at all. Iâm merely looking at what would be best for Ukraine. And in this particular case, I think itâs best for Ukraine to get rid of some land.
1 Like
Doesnât it just?!
1 Like
I kind of agree with your sentiment - the bit about the country being divided - but the implications on the last few centuries of national sovereignty ⌠oh ⌠wait a minute âŚ
This link helps visually describe what youâre saying -
Unless the domestic protests are happening at home. 
Or in other more âfriendlyâ countries such as Bahrain for that matter. Come to think of it, the US is quite selective about which countries cannot use violent suppression of domestic protesters. I donât remember any US condemnation of Canadaâs suppression of protesters during the 2010 G20. Or of itself during OWS.
But, send the police to break up a protest in a country that the US is not friendly with the current government and itâs time to call the evil devils out.
I see how you roll.
3 Likes
Stay out of those comments though, it suddenly veers off into American stateâs rights.
1 Like
Point taken, Czechoslovakia wasnât in the midst of civil unrest at the time.
But on all the rest: who decided which way Crimea goes? Crimea? Or the Russian Army? These types of decisions take years and involve, maybe, voting by the populations concerned.
De facto annexations enabled by invading armies cannot be justified after the fact. Itâs very odd to me how many people blithely think this Russiaâs actions are in any way appropriate. And, again: Chechnya. If they âliberateâ Crimea, they have to let Chechnya secede. Fairâs fair.
Personally, I need to know: when California goes demographically 51% Latino, which will happen in the next couple decades, does Mexico get to start issuing passports for Cal residents?
from the Calculus Affair, right?
I was thinking more âBlue Lotus.â
2 Likes
You provided a bouillabaisse of inane links, hide behind an appeal to authority (Mr. Cohen), and then immediately escalated to personal insults.
You and Alex Jones are in good company (I compare you, not Cohen, to Alex Jones).
I see that you keep desperately ninja-editing your posts up there to change their meaning, tone, etc.
Why now resort to being dishonest on top of everything else?
You and Alex Jones are in good company
Youâve already said that. Now youâre just repeating yourself. Once again, Iâm still waiting for you to make a rational argument based upon evidence instead of acting unhinged, ninja-editing, Godwin-ing the thread, resorting to 9-11 distractions and positing false arguments in the first place based upon ignorance.
2 Likes
And which domestic protests have been suppressed in a comparable way?
Did Canada use live ammunition? Or even rubber bullets? Did the US government speak out against violence in Bahrain? How differently are they acting with respect to Ukraine than they did with Bahrain? Is it simply that they didnât condemn Bahrain as strongly as they did Russia & Yanukovich?
[Mod edit: removed off topic flamebait]
ok, editing itself is somehow malign now. And no, wasnt going back and changing meaning, but thanks for the assumption of bad faith. But thatâs kind of your thing, isnât it?
And yes I restate Alex Jones because you lied and said I compared Stephen Cohen to him.
As for âunhinged,â yes, youâd seem to know a lot about being unhinged.
Just do us all a favor, and stick to the question: âShould Russian troops be taking over Crimea? Yes No â and you wonât get yourself in so much trouble.
Preferably the people of the Crimea themselves should decide, of course.
I agree. But if you want to see people defending annexation, take a look at discussions on Israel-Palestine some day.
Unlikely, considering Mexicoâs power, though itâd be some sort of poetic symmetry with how Texas left Mexico and joined the US.
However, my point that you keep ignoring, is that Ukraine is being torn in two by its own people. Itâd be a lot easier to govern if it was split in two. And in fact, the same goes for the US if it was split into coastal US on one hand, and Mid-West + the South on the other, though in the US it hasnât come to two revolutions over this divide yet.
The big question is: how badly do the people want what they want? Do their borders matter more than their political direction? How important is easier governance?
2 Likes
Moving the goal post? Do you have a different definition than I do for âviolent suppressionâ?
I stand by my statement. There is plenty of evidence to contradict your statement that âThe one thing the US seems to be clearly against is violent suppression of domestic protestorsâ.
The US is quite selective about when it decides it is against violent suppression and who should be held accountable. Just as you are quite selective about how you apply your morals.
I donât recall the State Dept. spending $5 Billion in any of the countries involved in the links below for a change in government as it has in the Ukraine,before the âviolent suppressionâ of protesters.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/g20-report-slams-police-for-excessive-force-1.1137051
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/bahrain-protester-shot-video_n_836468.html
2 Likes
The State Department has spent $5 Bilion for regime change in Ukraine? Maybe thatâs the tidbit you should have provided a link for. [quote=âtime, post:165, topic:24467â]
Moving the goal post? Do you have a different definition than I do for âviolent suppressionâ?
I stand by my statement. There is plenty of evidence to contradict your statement that âThe one thing the US seems to be clearly against is violent suppression of domestic protestorsâ.
[/quote]
If Iâm moving the goal posts then youâre engaging in moral equivalence. I donât think thereâs any reasonable world in which Canadaâs treatment of G20 protestors is comparable to shooting demonstrators with live ammunition.
And in the Bahrain context, the US did speak out against the regimeâs violence there.
I like the sponsor logo behind the speaker too.
So the US has invested $5 billion in Ukraine since independence to promote democracy. Unless you think democracy is a specific regime, and that the US has been planning this regime change since independence 23 years ago, Iâm not sure what that proves. I mean, Iâm guessing that the US has spent at least that much on promoting democracy in Russia over the same time period⌠so does that prove they are also behind the Russian invasion?
Citation needed. Not even the party that elected x-president / murderer / Russian defector is still supporting him. Sure, there are political differences between the Ukrainians, but if you look at polls of Ukrainians the large majority thinks their government is largely being effected by corruption. Just because a major political party would prefer closer trade relations with Russia, does not mean they actually want to be part of Russia. Splitting the country into two and then having that polarize to West-pro-West vs West-pro-East and East-pro-West vs East-pro-East makes that sound even more ridiculous. If the POTUS and large parts of congress were largely believed to be taking kickbacks from China in exchange for reducing our trade with Canada, you can bet the people here would be upset. Furthermore, if the government went into disarray after this, it would not suddenly make it OK for China to just up and make a âpeacefulâ blockade around Hawaii to âprotect the ethnic Asiansâ.
Interpret âpromote democracyâ any way you like, I suppose. Ukraine has been a Republic with elections ever since independence hasnât it?
The only way I can interpret spending $5 B to âpromote democracyâ in a democratic State is âPromote democracy with the people we want in chargeâ. Especially when I havenât seen the same type of effort to âpromote democracyâ in,say,Saudi Arabia that doesnât have any democracy.
Your mileage may vary but I prefer to call things what they are.
