Ukrainian Conflict

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

What do you mean "enslave"? I don't agree with the invasion but it's not like the Ukrainians were doing all that well under their old leaders. Like 80% of them were ambivalent about leaving the USSR in the first place.

"Not like they were doing that well"?
So are you suggesting that invasion is okay as long as you think you can do better?

Isn't that China's excuse for invading Tibet?

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

"Not like they were doing that well"?
So are you suggesting that invasion is okay as long as you think you can do better?

Isn't that China's excuse for invading Tibet?

Read again. I said I didn't agree with the invasion, but saying that Putin is enslaving them is just irresponsible use of language.

Also, if China's invasion of Tibet didn't make the country turn out far worse than it would have otherwise, I would'nt care so much about it either. As I'm sure you know, the occupation of Tibet was in fact totally brutal and still is rather bad for the natives. But as it concerns what is happening in Eastern Europe, I'm pretty ambivalent since IMO the total geopolitical collapse of the USSR was a mistake that could and should have have been avoided (Getting rid of communism and introducing reforms? Good. Totally dismembering the country? What do you expect will happen 20 years down the road? No wonder Putin got into office. Once again, the stubbornness of the hardline Communists who opposed Gorbachev is to blame).

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Read again. I said I didn't agree with the invasion, but saying that Putin is enslaving them is just irresponsible use of language.

Also, if China's invasion of Tibet didn't make the country turn out far worse than it would have otherwise, I would'nt care so much about it either. As I'm sure you know, the occupation of Tibet was in fact totally brutal and still is rather bad for the natives. But as it concerns what is happening in Eastern Europe, I'm pretty ambivalent since IMO the total geopolitical collapse of the USSR was a mistake that could and should have have been avoided (Getting rid of communism and introducing reforms? Good. Totally dismembering the country? What do you expect will happen 20 years down the road? No wonder Putin got into office. Once again, the stubbornness of the hardline Communists who opposed Gorbachev is to blame).

Agree.

The West won't want to admit it. But the collapsing of Communists block society (not the government) and rapid breaking up without progressively reformed was a disaster to East Europe overall. Yugoslavia Wars. Economical collapse. Exponentially rise of poverty AND filthy rich multi-billionaires. Not to mention, nests for skinheads and neo-fascists groups to strive.

They could at least have became something similar to East Germany, minus the subsidise helps from West Germany, but plus with much more advanced technology and general infrastructure. Or at the very least don't have as much internal conflicts as the Western Europe has

[LeoXiao]

Well it's not the fault of the West, but of the reluctant communist officials who couldn't see anything but short-term gain and did their best to delay getting rid of the CPSU for so long that they practically ensured a bad outcome. It's a miracle that the breakup was mostly peaceful; it could easily have been a (possibly nuclear) civil war. Communism ruins countries proportionally to how long they suffer under it. The quicker it is dispensed with the better.

The "West" plays a comparatively subsidiary role, but a major one nonetheless. They made the understandable mistake of continuing to treat Russia as a strategic enemy even after the collapse of the USSR. I say understandable since nobody really knew just how weak Russia was, so treating it with caution made sense. In any case, expanding NATO to Eastern Europe was a terrible move from the standpoint of good relations with the Russians. The EU is somewhat better since it's a mainly economic power, but the main issue is that not enough was done to reach out to and cooperate with the center of post-Soviet power, i.e. the Russian Federation.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

"Not like they were doing that well"?
So are you suggesting that invasion is okay as long as you think you can do better?

Isn't that China's excuse for invading Tibet?

Enough with the Chinese bashing. We know you're not a fan of China but this thread is about Ukraine so how about we stick to that one?

And for the record would you be saying the same thing given the fact that Chiang was pretty much doing the exact thing before he was defeated?

And to put this on topic the fact that you yourself need to understand is that nobody here is right or wrong. It's that given the exact same circumstances anyone would do the same thing to ensure their objectives.

The fact is that these "fiasco" was something that the Ukraine leaders did to themselves. End of story. People are pissed. The greed of their leaders are responsible.

The 2nd fact is that you got two power blocs, Russia and the EU, both who see this as a chance to shift the balance of power in the region. Obviously you can't just send troops in blazing so a lot of it is sabre rattling and political maneuvering. They are simply looking to defend or expand their interests. There's no right or wrong every country has a right to intervene in the affairs of other countries in order to protect their interests. Anything else is just a side effect or a bonus. Why does the US invade or intervene in specific areas? They only do it if they're going to get something out of it, otherwise they're aren't going to waste their time.

Putin simply acted faster to stake his claim on it. Whether or not you like it is your opinion but one cannot deny that he's doing a damn good job at protecting Russia's part.

The only losers in this are the civilians. Whether they go east or west they'll always be slaves. Unless someone goes in and roots out those SOBs that bought this on them nothing will change.

And don't try to say the EU is any better, the people that are responsible for the screw-ups are still there to begin with and would likely continue as normal but under different circumstances.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

So I guess the board's opinion is that the Ukrainians deserve to be invaded because they didn't run their country properly.

At least that's the gist of it.

Guess it is time for a free-for-all. Everyone should start garbing nearby nations.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

And for the record would you be saying the same thing given the fact that Chiang was pretty much doing the exact thing before he was defeated?

If you knew so much about what Vallen says, you would know his hatred for Chiang is probably even more than China.

The fact is that these "fiasco" was something that the Ukraine leaders did to themselves. End of story. People are pissed. The greed of their leaders are responsible.

The protests? yes, Russian occupation? not so much. That's like saying it's the homeowner's fault that he got robbed.

Obviously you can't just send troops in blazing so a lot of it is sabre rattling and political maneuvering.

There are about 16,000 uniformed but unmarked reasons why you're wrong in Crimea right now.

every country has a right to intervene in the affairs of other countries

Glad to know that we can finally form a world government now guys, now that you've finally trashed the concept called "Sovereignty"

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

So I guess the board's opinion is that the Ukrainians deserve to be invaded because they didn't run their country properly.

At least that's the gist of it.

Guess it is time for a free-for-all. Everyone should start garbing nearby nations.

TBH, I actually find it almost to be some sort of weird extension of anti-US sentiment. You even have anti-war activist groups that says "Military invasion is bad.... BUT LOOK AT ALL THE TERRIBLE THINGS THE US HAS DONE!!!!!" I mean, in an article that's supposed to be against Russia invading someone, the US still gets the all the blame. It's almost like it's ok because the US isn't the one doing the invading.

But yea, I guess it's time for the US to finally conquer Mexico for good, just look at how poorly that country is doing. While we're at it we should also take over Canada, it's only fair after the terrible plague the Canadians have unleashed up on us that is known as the Bieber

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

So I guess the board's opinion is that the Ukrainians deserve to be invaded because they didn't run their country properly.

At least that's the gist of it.

Guess it is time for a free-for-all. Everyone should start garbing nearby nations.

You have to understand that we are simply just looking at things differently. No doubt you holds your argument based on deontological ethic viewpoints: Invasion is bad no matter who do it

I am and a couple guys here meanwhile just see it from an utilitarianism view point: what the Russian government doing is bad, but what could be a better (but have to be realistic) solution? Is there another way to settle this with less death and maximum happiness ("the greatest happiness principle"). Things like that


Another example. You don't like torture, and to you because it's bad no matter what. I also don't like torture as well, but because it does not work. Torture caused harm to the victim, while do not bring happiness to anyone else to balance it out. Our way to judge are simply different, but does not means both of us are not looking at things morally

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

So I guess the board's opinion is that the Ukrainians deserve to be invaded because they didn't run their country properly.

At least that's the gist of it.

Guess it is time for a free-for-all. Everyone should start garbing nearby nations.

For the last time: Learn to read.

[Lyocol]

Russia has violated Ukraine's sovereignty. That's all I can say.

[Ithekro]

But yea, I guess it's time for the US to finally conquer Mexico for good, just look at how poorly that country is doing.

We did that already (1846-48). Took half their country too. (paid them for it, too)
Only took 1% of the population, but more and more of them keep coming to fill in the gaps.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

every country has a right to intervene in the affairs of other countries in order to protect their interests.

While I do generally agree with what you have said, I do have to contest this statement. The Westphalian system that arose in the 16th century enshrined the concept of sovereignty of the nation-state. Which is why typically it is a quandry in interviening on civil wars and such.

For all the talk about NWO's and whatnot, both IR realists and globalization theorists don't really think that is a feasable thing in the near future.

Anyways, the Ukrainian crisis has deep roots in history and culture. The fact that the current Ukrainian parliament is a rump parliament excluding representatives from the east (mostly from Yankovich's party) makes all of their talk about about how Crimea's similar pro-Russian rump parliament actions illegitimate kinda hypocritical.

[sbg711]

must watch

YouTube

https://youtu.be/v6jHhzj08yQ

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[kyp275]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

You know what guys, Putin was right all along, just look at this!

Journalists getting attacked, TV channels being blocked and replaced! News media told to stop broadcasting! UN envoy held at gunpoint by armed men! Those Ukrainians are terrible!!!

Hmm? What's that?.....oh...OHHHH. You mean it's the Russians that are doing those.


Well, I guess it's understandable, I mean, after all those claims of repressions and stuff, it'd be terrible if there wasn't actually any, so I guess they had no choice but to add in some

[sbg711]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Journalists getting attacked, TV channels being blocked and replaced! News media told to stop broadcasting! UN envoy held at gunpoint by armed men! Those Ukrainians are terrible!!!

Western journalism, and journalism in general today, is very little concerned about the actual situation and prefers to take advantage of emotionally driven crap to raise its ratings. As we had for instance with this incident here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIbGpSvtuGY

A group of unarmed Ukrainian soldiers are marching with the Ukrainian flag along with the Soviet flag towards a post guarded by armed Russian soldiers.
Now, everyone including the Russians, Ukrainians and journalists understand that this is a clear provocative move and can easily trigger a bloody fallout. Do they care? Heck. The journalists are even swirling around the marching soldiers like ants, to show how vicious, bloodthirsty and immoral the grizzly Russians are.

That's how pathetic reporting is, especially today. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian command would prefer to avoid new provocations. Neither of the sides truly wants to kill anyone.

That side, it seems like all that hysteria will soon die down. All that sanction crap was to save face. It can't really hurt Russia enough for it to turn away from its geopolitical security interests.

Markets already see a Putin win

A grim case in point is the confrontation between Russia and the West in Ukraine. What makes this conflict so dangerous is that U.S. and EU policy seems to be motivated entirely by hope and wishful thinking. Hope that Russian President Vladimir Putin will “see sense” — or at least be deterred by the threat of sanctions to Russia’s economic interests and the personal wealth of his oligarch friends. Wishful thinking about “democracy and freedom” inevitably overcoming dictatorship and military bullying.

Investors and businesses cannot afford to be so sentimental. Though we should never forget Nathan Rothschild’s advice at the battle of Waterloo — “buy on the sound of gunfire” — the market response to this week’s events in Ukraine makes sense only if we believe that Russia has won.

[kyp275]

So true, obviously the only trust worthy news source in the world today are Russian news sources.

After all, they're the only one that can report, since nobody else are allowed to, and they're totally 100% trustworthy, because you know, they said so.



God, I love it when people thinks basic human rights are only valid when expedient for those in charge.

[sbg711]

Originally Posted by kyp275

So true, obviously the only trust worthy news source in the world today are Russian news sources.

After all, they're the only one that can report, since nobody else are allowed to, and they're totally 100% trustworthy, because you know, they said so.

You're kicking up a lot of dust here for no reason. Firstly, I don't really remember when was the last time the west viewed Russian news as credible... at all. First it was the soviet union thing, then it was the Chechnya thing, then it was/is the Putin thing, Russia always has been, is and will be a dictatorship, everyone's drunk, bears walks on streets and "oh, you believe Russian sources? Are you mad?"

For one, let's not forget that Ukraine IS Russia's backyard.
Russians and Ukrainians do share the same history, the same culture, and more importantly, they barely have any language barriers.
For any western correspondent to show the real picture on Ukraine, even if he'd really want to, would be quite difficult as opposed to a Russian/Ukrainian one.
And, at the very least Russian news never reported about 500 killed babies in incubators (ala Iraq)

[LeoXiao]

Dude, Russia is obviously in the wrong here. We don't need to pretend they're justified in the invasion.

[Daniel E.]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

We did that already (1846-48). Took half their country too. (paid them for it, too)
Only took 1% of the population, but more and more of them keep coming to fill in the gaps.

Can't even remember how many similar comments I have read from you over the years, Ithekro. You have been posting them for as long as I can remember and not once I have said anything to you. Problem now is that people are posting ignorant jokes about my country, jokes I do not find funny in the slightest.

With that in mind, I must ask you (and everybody else) to keep the thread on topic and spare me the "humor" some of you have.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Daniel E.

Can't even remember how many similar comments I have read from you over the years, Ithekro. You have been posting them for as long as I can remember and not once I have said anything to you. Problem now is that people are posting ignorant jokes about my country, jokes I do not find funny in the slightest.

With that in mind, I must ask you (and everybody else) to keep the thread on topic and spare me the "humor" some of you have.

I'll apologies. Though from a historical point of view, what I said was true. The US did defeat Mexico in 1848 after taking Mexico City. They did take half of what was then Mexico, and paid Mexico several million dollors for the lands. There was only about 1% of the Mexican population in that half of their country (the bid to get Anglos to move into Texas and California had been an effort to get anybody into those lands).

The last part was observation over the last 150+ years of immigration from Mexico north into the United States, and that places like California, with its 38 million people, are 31% Mexican (via US Census).