Ukrainian Conflict

[Archon_Wing]

I don't really disagree that it's another kind of shit, but I just don't think having the Taliban in power was a viable choice especially with their enforced restriction on womens' rights at a minimum. While certainly such oppression would not have no magic pill that will take decades to repair, I think there's a difference there. This kind of thing has no easy solution, but at least there was more sound reasons for such an intervention that had international approval, as opposed to something like Iraq which is more disputable even if it had reasons.

Point is while I think my country has done a lot of trouble, I think it also does quite a few good things that gets understated. It still doesn't excuse anything, btw.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

No, that was caused by opposition over the affordable health care act. It was a pathetic display no doubt, but it doesn't fit here. Not to mention it lasted all of two weeks.

As for running your comparison to Japan, they have one of the highest life expectancies in the world so I don't think there's a problem there although they also rely a lot on food imports. Oh, and hey, do you think Japan would ban all imports on US food if they wanted to punish the US? I think not, even if they can get it from elsewhere. They ban because of safety reasons.

For the first point, the government shut down is indirectly, but origins from the national debt that contributed greatly from the wars. isn't it? Just like Russia banning foods from European nations were to retaliate against the Europe Union ban, and only indirectly caused by the Ukrainian invasion.

But like i said, that's simply how you look from a biased viewpoint. See, you can argue that the Japanese policy is fine because they still have the highest life expectancy. But you surely didn't take into account whether the Russians life expectancy will drop when claiming their government "staving off their citizens" with their policy isn't it?

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

But that's neither here nor there. If the US were to suddenly ban food imports, we'd be in far better shape relatively speaking, because we are food exporters to a lot of the world. See how the situation matters even excluding food being imported from somewhere else?

The Russians said the same thing ("it gonna benefit the local farmers" etc)

You know the US imported 115 billions world of food and export only 136 billions ? The key things here is import what you don't have, can't grow so a lot of things. If US ban food import, the situation in US will be no different with Russia banning European fruit and vegetables: some products won't be available or priced up

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

So are you arguing they'd be better off under the Taliban? Is the US responsible for Afghanistan for having such low stats to begin with? And also, Afghanistan wasn't a US-only invasion. And please, ISIS? Far cry and far worse than anything either US or Russia is doing.

Firstly on "not only US invasion". US contributed 70% of troops in Afghanistan, UK contributed 9%, while the other 46 countries contributes the rest of the 21%. Don't think even Nazi German contributed that high percentage of troops when we blamed them for the destruction in Europe during WW2.

And just like ganbaru said, it was simply a case of going from living under a bunch of religious fanatics to a war-torn society. You can argue that one is better than another. But i can't

[Ithekro]

Consider that I had classmates in college and high school that were from Afghanistan (refuge families from the war with Russia). When we heard about the defacing of the Buddhist shrine there one told me that he felt he wouldn't be able to go home again after what the Taliban had done. Less than a year later, we are at war with the Taliban.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

For the first point, the government shut down is indirectly, but origins from the national debt that contributed greatly from the wars. isn't it? Just like Russia banning foods from European nations were to retaliate against the Europe Union ban, and only indirectly caused by the Ukrainian invasion.

Well, if you're going to trace it like that, then you can make an assumption out of everything. I should blame my higher electric bills on the national debt too because yes, it's indirectly related.

But like i said, that's simply how you look from a biased viewpoint. See, you can argue that the Japanese policy is fine because they still have the highest life expectancy. But you surely didn't take into account whether the Russians life expectancy will drop when claiming their government "staving off their citizens" with their policy isn't it?

Well, Russia's life expectancy is pretty poor already... for all your talk about the US neglecting its citizen's well being, I would suggest you compare the two, which are behind many other developed countries, but Russia is just a bit better than North Korea.

And that's not my point. It's not like you're omitting parts of the big picture too-- Japan will ban food due to safety problems! So apples and oranges it is!

The Russians said the same thing ("it gonna benefit the local farmers" etc)

Yep, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Ukraine situation.

Firstly on "not only US invasion". US contributed 70% of troops in Afghanistan, UK contributed 9%, while the other 46 countries contributes the rest of the 21%. Don't think even Nazi German contributed that high percentage of troops when we blamed them for the destruction in Europe during WW2.

Sure, it's US dominated, but there's significant international support. 70% is not "only". It's not like in Iraq where we ignored international opinion for the most part.

As for World War 2, well, "Axis powers", right?

And just like ganbaru said, it was simply a case of going from living under a bunch of religious fanatics to a war-torn society. You can argue that one is better than another. But i can't

It's different and I agree mostly with Ganbaru anyways. And certainly up to debate. Nobody thought that invading Afghanistan was going to solve everything, but that doesn't make it a failure or it failed to achieve anything. I just find radical Islam (Taliban and now ISIS to be capable of much worse things).

[Fireminer]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

It's different and I agree mostly with Ganbaru anyways. And certainly up to debate. Nobody thought that invading Afghanistan was going to solve everything, but that doesn't make it a failure or it failed to achieve anything. I just find radical Islam (Taliban and now ISIS to be capable of much worse things).

It's all about how the people of Afghanistan perceive their freedom, or more exactly, where would they put their blame on. If they had gone with something like the Arab Spring and screwed up, well, they had got no one to blame but themselves - Like Egypt, Morsi and el-Sisi. But because the American overthrew Taliban, so now everyone blame them, whether the source of the problem.

The foremost duty of an overthrow of a government, in every cases, is always to satisfy the mass. If they failed to do that, then the new one would not be able to get a firm stand. Everything got worse if the people themselves didn't initiate the action.

I could see something similar with Russia and Crimea.

[Archon_Wing]

Yea, a lot of that is in the people of Afghanistan's hands, and you can only help them so much. I just feel with the Taliban attitude towards women, that it would be impossible for freedom to grow in such an environment. But it is true said situation was forced on the people whether or not they were ready, due to the international belligerency of the Taliban.

Ukraine situation will definitely hold many countries responsible for the trouble here, as many have an agenda on both sides, and interfering with the will of the people will not contribute anything to stability over there. We can only hope Russia will realize these things, which they most likely will stop this dangerous game-- it's just about when to draw the line.

I don't know who will win, but I know many will lose.

[Dr. Dahm]

Just to lighten the mood a bit I can't help but feel this Seinfeld clip is strangely relevant to world events these days

[Archon_Wing]

Hmm, that particular imbalance is analyzed here Trying to dominate Eurasia is just as bad as it in reality.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...y_is_weak.html

Though I guess I would be like to be that guy to wreck the board at times. More so now.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

So are you arguing they'd be better off under the Taliban? Is the US responsible for Afghanistan for having such low stats to begin with? And also, Afghanistan wasn't a US-only invasion. And please, ISIS? Far cry and far worse than anything either US or Russia is doing.

It depends on how far you go back in history. When the soviets were converting Afghanistan into a socialist country or at least an ally under their umbrella. The US-led mission has driven them out with local guerillas, among them.. what we today call the taliban.

So the taliban problem can be rooted back to an US-led proxy-war with the USSR.

If the soviets had the chance to actually develop the country back then, Afghanistan could be much more developed then it is today. Arguably the US-led approach of ousting the soviet army/occupiers, instead destabilized the region in a way, that even today can be felt.

So, to actually see the USA as hero and liberator in Afghanistan you'ld need to have a very bizarre and one-sided understanding of world politics.

*edit: They just removed some of the mess they left there.

[Ithekro]

With the discovery of something like a trillion dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan, you wonder what will happen next in terms on how it will be acquired.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

With the discovery of something like a trillion dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan, you wonder what will happen next in terms on how it will be acquired.

The Chinese went in there, paid off the Taliban to establish a capital of the Islamic State, and strip mine the whole place.

[GreyZone]

Just to remind everyone: This thread is not about Afghanistan.

[risingstar3110]

There is similarity through. Ukraine could head in Afghanistan direction where worse thing is born out when it becomes a playground for the superpower nations.

Instead of radical Islamist like the Taliban. It could be an infested ground for fascist and far-right group for example. Not like they were unpopular in Eastern Europe


Civil war backed by 2 superpower interest. What did we have so far this past century?

1. we have Afghanistan, one side win (US) but left their group unchecked and it manifested into something even worse (the Taliban)
2. we have Korea,indecisive, the country broke off into half and till nowadays, still have high military tension
3. Congo, the conflict still continue till today
4. we have Cuba, one side win (the Russians), but being continuously destabilised and isolated by the the losing side (US)
5. and finally Vietnam, ended their civil war thank to US withdraw. Neutralise themselves in international politic since

I guess option 2 and 5 probably will be preferable for Ukraine. Did i miss someone?

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Jinto

It depends on how far you go back in history. When the soviets were converting Afghanistan into a socialist country or at least an ally under their umbrella. The US-led mission has driven them out with local guerillas, among them.. what we today call the taliban.

So the taliban problem can be rooted back to an US-led proxy-war with the USSR.

If the soviets had the chance to actually develop the country back then, Afghanistan could be much more developed then it is today. Arguably the US-led approach of ousting the soviet army/occupiers, instead destabilized the region in a way, that even today can be felt.

So, to actually see the USA as hero and liberator in Afghanistan you'ld need to have a very bizarre and one-sided understanding of world politics.

*edit: They just removed some of the mess they left there.

I would agree that if one would to see the US (especially on its own) to not be a very reasonable assessment but I never claimed that they were "hero and liberator" nor did I discount they were responsible for what happened in the first place. This is why I stressed this being more than a unilateral action. But yea, if you were to dial back history even further, then you can attribute fault to a number of sources. Though honestly, it doesn't really matter as you'll just get tangled up in a web of historical blame (I mean a lot of the European powers were responsible for colonialism and two world wars, and could really be linked to a ton of things, for example. To generalize everything they do in regards to that as mess cleaning may be accurate, but doesn't really go to discredit everything they do.)

Though I would agree it's a mess cleanup than anything else. And yes, analogies are just that.

What would be a better analogy? Well, if the US annexes part of Mexico to protect American citizens due to the government over there failing, I'd like to imgine what the reaction of that would be... (not that the US hasn't meddled there before in the past as well as conquering like half the country.)

[Yu Ominae]

Lot of reports I've suggest are showing more foreigners fighting on both sides. Includes Americans and Russians too. Though most countries are trying to put up stiff penalties.

Most of those fighting alongside the rebels say that they want to stop Western support over Kiev's fascist government.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Yu Ominae

Lot of reports I've suggest are showing more foreigners fighting on both sides. Includes Americans and Russians too. Though most countries are trying to put up stiff penalties.

Most of those fighting alongside the rebels say that they want to stop Western support over Kiev's fascist government.

They should really invent a new propaganda word/phrase for "enemy of Russia".

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

They should really invent a new propaganda word/phrase for "enemy of Russia".

How about the word "capitalist".

No, too fad. Let's try "CORPORATIST".

[Yu Ominae]

With some treaties signed up, the fighters are still calling for independence for eastern Ukraine.

Some of the provisions call for foreigners fighting on both sides to leave ASAP.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Yu Ominae

With some treaties signed up, the fighters are still calling for independence for eastern Ukraine.

Some of the provisions call for foreigners fighting on both sides to leave ASAP.

Well technically, Putin said there are no Russian troops in Ukraine... So how is he suppose to pull out troops who are not suppose to exist?

You can't tell people to get rid of their troops if they don't even admit there are any troops.

[AnimeFan188]

World War 3 imminent? Vladimir Putin planning major war for a decade,
says aide:

"Russian president Vladimir Putin has been planning for a major war for at least a
decade, according to a former high ranking advisor. The Inquisitr reported Sept.
26 that not only has Putin been planning for military operations in Crimea and
Ukraine, he has plans for the Baltic region and perhaps other territories as well
based on the legal definition of what constitutes persons from Russia. Could this
mean that the Russian president is willing to take the world to the brink of World
War 3?

Former presidential adviser Andrey Illarionov, speaking at a conference in
Lithuania, said that his former boss has had designs on the region since 2003.
The adviser noted that as far back as 2008, the Russian Journal had published a
plan for the takeover of Crimea, followed by a military sweep northwestward
toward Kiev, the capital of Ukraine.

Illarionov, who advised the Russian president on economic policy between
2000-2005, pointed out, according to the Lithuanian Times: “As we see, not only
were they preparing, they were publishing it." And, according to the former high
ranking official, Putin himself revealed his position about Ukraine's status as a
nation in 2010 at a NATO summit when he said the state wasn't a "real" nation
but a country that took over territory once occupied by Russia, Romania, Hungary,
and Poland."

See:

http://www.examiner.com/article/worl...cade-says-aide


================================================== =========


Poland needs nuclear arms to ward off Russia: Walesa:

"Walesa said Poland should procure nuclear weapons as a safeguard against
Russia, which it blames for stoking the crisis in neighboring Ukraine."

See:

http://www.defencetalk.com/poland-ne...-walesa-60642/



The Ukraine mess is having some serious fallout ... perhaps in more ways than
one ....