- Status
- Jul 23, 2009
- 5,412
- 19
- 17,510
Buffalo Soldier said:
So it doesn't become a NATO 'lake'. As it is, to have access to the Med, have to go thru the Dardenelles 'shooting range'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet
- Aug 9, 2012
- 2,223
- 0
- 11,480
ChrisE said:
You too?! He did the same with me, he was caught by another forum user in a lie and I called him out about it. Then he "busted a spring" and started attacking me as well. I think he avoided a ban, though I think he was warned by the mods.
It's a small world.
- Aug 9, 2012
- 2,223
- 0
- 11,480
I seem to remember we had this exact same discussion some time ago...FoxxyBrown1111 said:When and where did that happen?
Last time I checked, Krim people decided to join Russia on free will.
OTOH, what happens if you are "protected" against your will, you see it in the rest of Ukraine.
So instead to repeat the lies and nonsense you get from reading one sided press, better start thinking yourself... Thanks in advance.
P.S.: I am always shocked how easy people fall for western propaganda lies again and again and again... OMG.
Here are some quick links if you really are open to adjusting your opinion about the "election" in Crimea:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...lection-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnews...is-under-the-principles-of-jus-ad-bellum.aspx
The rest of your post really does not make a whole lot of sense to me, and I think we talked about this before.
rhubroma said:Russian children are tought at school that Russia began at Kiev, when SS. Cyril and Methodius Christianized the region and invented Slavic literature.
Hence, the idea that the former Soviet Union "overstepped its bounds" depends upon which histroical analysis one takes. The West, in this sense, once agian, has failed to estimate the longue durée consequences of cultural genesis.
Interesting, I had suspected they were taught something like this. Do you know if this was included after the fall of communism? This historical theory does not sound like something the Soviet state would approve of.
As for overstepping bound, I'm not sure in what context you mean? I was more focused on the breaking of international law by Russia.
That the Russians have a theory about the origins of their culture(soul) is interesting, but I don't see the relevance to the current conflict other than to explain why Russian propaganda is so successful in Russia.
Us Scandinavians could say our soul/race/culture/genome is based in Germany since that is where we came from when the Ice receded after the last Ice age. Yet that is still no reason to Invade Germany.
The Icelanders could say the same thing about Norway. Still I don't think they see any point in invading us.
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
thanks catblackcat said:
the liar here is you, torebear. a blatant one...i will remind you why i and a half a dozen other posters challenged your hypocrisy. you doggedly denied - and still do - what has been obvious to almost anyone following the cross country ski sport. that the norwegians doped in the 90s. all i did i questioned you... for which you called me a P-word, an abuser of little children. when i received a polite request from a mod to not mention the word any more, i heeded the request. that's all. so if you still harbour resentment for that, it's the testimony to how small-minded you are...ToreBear said:You too?! He did the same with me, he was caught by another forum user in a lie and I called him out about it. Then he "busted a spring" and started attacking me as well. I think he avoided a ban, though I think he was warned by the mods.
It's a small world.
that's where your brotherhood to chris e ends. he is a notorious, arrogant decade long apologist for armstrong doping. for which he was challnged by me and others. as with your hypocisy, he hates me for being persistent.
the facts i just stated are easily verifiable.
- Aug 9, 2012
- 2,223
- 0
- 11,480
About the XC stuff. I just like to have a little proof, and explore alternate theories that might explain the same phenomena. My theories might not be accepted by those who think anything they don't understand is doping, but thats not really my problem. And it's certainly not hypocrisy.python said:
I called you the P-word to get you to understand that not only the truth hurts(which normal people would perhaps realize was me not calling you the P-word). Unfortunately I did not realize you were in a trolling faze and wanted me to write endless explanations about the same thing over and over.
Now the reason you went off trolling I suspect is the way I confronted you, together with some sort of resentment of me not seeing some results as representative in the xc thread. I admit my surprise about the results might have led me to be less diplomatic, but that is how things work in a forum.
The facts are easily verifiable yes. But facts have a context, and that context it easily verifiable as well. That context shows the facts are not what they seem when taken out of context.
Now I don't harbor resentment. I harbor concern for getting into one of your rounds of time consuming trolling. I'm more annoyed by my self not realizing you were trolling than I am annoyed with you.
You are who you are. Thats fine. I just avoid responding to you because I harbor doubts at your willingness to respond as an adult.
Now everyone else, sorry for dragging this here.
I hope we can now continue on with the politics discussion.
Or watch La Vuelta.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
ToreBear said:
Torebear, ask yourself one simple question: Do you really think you can change a well formed opinion when linking articles from the press I mentioned many times is not to trust at all. I again recommend you to read different opinions, get deep into what is really going on in Ukraine. Thanks in advance. Give it a try... then we can discuss. Until then it makes no sense.
- Aug 9, 2012
- 2,223
- 0
- 11,480
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I don't see your opinion as well formed, and I really don't expect anything to change your mind, thats why I try to keep it brief.
I've read mostly Russian propaganda, it helps me get an idea of what the thinking is there. Even though I read mostly Russian based ideas and opinions, I still keep in touch with reality.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
ToreBear said:
LOLZ. You "stole" my idea. Actually I started to keep it short, but had to answer in a way to the complete nonsense of your post I originally quoted.
I've read mostly western propaganda, it helps me get an idea of what the thinking is here by those who make the news. Even though I read mostly western based ideas and opinions, I still keep in touch with reality, and thus know who started and prolonged the ongoing Ukraine crisis. Sorry to tell: Something you completely lack.
Foxxy, can you help me by pointing out what in the following statements is propaganda?
Is it a lie that Russia stopped observers from entering Crimea? Is it a lie that Russia had no problem with observers in the rest of the Ukraine? Or is putting those together to conclude that Russia was hiding something in the Crimea evidence of faulty logic?
Has Article 51 been misquoted here? Or is the meaning of the Article misinterpreted?
Was the letter ever published? Did Yanukovich admit to writing the letter?
Is this a misinterpretation of the Constitution? Or perhaps you regard the Parliament as illegitimate? I can certainly understand that. But in that case, who would have the legal right to make the determination of using force?
Again, do you dispute the claim that Russia refused to allow observers into Crimea? And do you argue that the entire global media manufactured these stories?
Are these reports fabrications?
I understand your points about the takeover in the Ukraine, who was behind it, who economically benefits from it, and so on. But even if one sympathizes with Russia in this respect, it doesn't automatically follow that their motives and tactics in Crimea have been justified. If you want to make the argument that the annexation was legitimate and that virtually everyone there welcomed it, I think you have to do more than repeat recounting all the sins of Ukraine. I'm no expert on this part of the world, and maybe you have good reason for challenging all these points. But I'd like to see the evidence against them, not just "they started it".
Is it a lie that Russia stopped observers from entering Crimea? Is it a lie that Russia had no problem with observers in the rest of the Ukraine? Or is putting those together to conclude that Russia was hiding something in the Crimea evidence of faulty logic?
Has Article 51 been misquoted here? Or is the meaning of the Article misinterpreted?
Was the letter ever published? Did Yanukovich admit to writing the letter?
Is this a misinterpretation of the Constitution? Or perhaps you regard the Parliament as illegitimate? I can certainly understand that. But in that case, who would have the legal right to make the determination of using force?
Again, do you dispute the claim that Russia refused to allow observers into Crimea? And do you argue that the entire global media manufactured these stories?
Are these reports fabrications?
I understand your points about the takeover in the Ukraine, who was behind it, who economically benefits from it, and so on. But even if one sympathizes with Russia in this respect, it doesn't automatically follow that their motives and tactics in Crimea have been justified. If you want to make the argument that the annexation was legitimate and that virtually everyone there welcomed it, I think you have to do more than repeat recounting all the sins of Ukraine. I'm no expert on this part of the world, and maybe you have good reason for challenging all these points. But I'd like to see the evidence against them, not just "they started it".
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
Merckx index said:
They may have not been justified by the charta word for word. OTOH, since USA pissed on it, literally, with their invasion in Iraq (BTW, based on complete lies to the UN), I guess everybody has the same rights... and yet, still, Russia did not annex Crimea, but people joined Russia in an election. A election that might be more justified than the one that brought GWB, the complete psychos Cheney and Rumsfeld into the White House.
And I have yet to see Russia invading a country since the 70s, while OTOH, the US imperialists did countless coupe de etats, direct invasions, and CIA operations, drone wars and what else against countries with an elected president. The puppets and leaders of the USA may mislead posters like "Torebear" and others with their "Peacekeepers", "freedom & democracy" campaigns and what else. But the fact remains: Russia tries to defend the little rest they have, while USA uses its military (BTW, their budget is 10+ times higher than that of Russia, China, or EU) to occupy more and more countries to expand debt markets and economic markets for their ever greedy oligarchs. That´s the sad part behind the millions of deaths produced by "Made in the USA" warfare.
And it´s a blatant ongoing lie that Russia invaded Ukraine. That never happened. It´s the other way round. As you know. It´s disgusting how many grown ups still fall for the imperialists lies. They learned zilch from history...
Speech Before the Russian Parliament
On Crimea and Sevastopol
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/20/on-crimea-and-sevastopol/
Hollow Advice
Obama to Putin: Do as I Say Not as I Do
by RALPH NADER
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/21/obama-to-putin-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do/
On Crimea and Sevastopol
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/20/on-crimea-and-sevastopol/
Hollow Advice
Obama to Putin: Do as I Say Not as I Do
by RALPH NADER
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/21/obama-to-putin-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do/
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
Thanks for the links, Retro. Always interested to hear what Nader says, though my respect for him has decreased considerably since he handed the election to Bush. Arguably, he bears a great deal of indirect responsibility for the invasion of Iraq that he opposes so strongly. While that doesn’t negate his points, I do find it ironic that he’s making this comparison. If he wants to understand how overinflated egos lead to trouble in the international scene, he has to look no further than himself and what he did in Florida.
Anyway, part of his argument is the same the-U.S.-did-worse that Foxxy mentions. IOW, two wrongs make a right. I agree with his criticisms of American foreign policy to a large extent, but that doesn’t justify what Russia does. I also find it really ironic that he notes Putin's policies have wide support in Russia, coming from someone who has spent his career arguing against American policies that had wide support by the American public. Nader, like Foxxy, has no problem claiming that the American people have a poor understanding of what's actually going on, but doesn't point out that the same might apply to the Russian people.
Nader’s other major point I think is more relevant, that the close history of Russia/Ukraine makes this an unusual case not easily compared to interference in other situations, and warrants much greater sensitivity on our part. Certainly we in the U.S. have no experience of having large numbers of people similar to ourselves in history and culture living in a neighboring country where their rights may be under threat. Not to mention never having a war fought on our soil by foreign powers since the very early days of the nation.
Wrt Kosovo, this was sold, and I think rightly, as a humanitarian crisis. Most Republicans/conservatives in the U.S., as I recall, strongly opposed it—which says a lot about how little American economic interests had to do with it--with Clinton arguing that we couldn’t allow the slaughter to continue. In fact, I remember at the time thinking how odd it was to have American intervention in a foreign war supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.
Putin himself notes this in the link, but argues that that has nothing to do with the legality question. But it does undercut his argument that there was some kind of necessity for Russia to intervene. There is a general if not explicit nor always enforced international disgust at slaughter and other crimes on this scale, and this didn’t obviously apply to Crimea. Putin’s focus on the strict question of legality and precedent glosses over this.
And he doesn’t note another important difference between Kosovo and Crimea. The former intervention was by a coalition of Western nations, none of which had a direct interest in the territory at stake in anything the way Russia has a direct interest in Crimea. Again, I note that American fat cats were not looking to get in on a mother lode of natural resources, as they were in Iraq. Russia has an obvious economic interest in Crimea and the port, beyond the question of all the ethnic Russians living there.
And again, Putin’s description of the voting results simply ignores the much different numbers reported elsewhere. Nader claims that under any circumstances, a majority would have supported reunification with Russia, but doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Not saying he's wrong, but a statement that important should have evidence.
Anyway, part of his argument is the same the-U.S.-did-worse that Foxxy mentions. IOW, two wrongs make a right. I agree with his criticisms of American foreign policy to a large extent, but that doesn’t justify what Russia does. I also find it really ironic that he notes Putin's policies have wide support in Russia, coming from someone who has spent his career arguing against American policies that had wide support by the American public. Nader, like Foxxy, has no problem claiming that the American people have a poor understanding of what's actually going on, but doesn't point out that the same might apply to the Russian people.
Nader’s other major point I think is more relevant, that the close history of Russia/Ukraine makes this an unusual case not easily compared to interference in other situations, and warrants much greater sensitivity on our part. Certainly we in the U.S. have no experience of having large numbers of people similar to ourselves in history and culture living in a neighboring country where their rights may be under threat. Not to mention never having a war fought on our soil by foreign powers since the very early days of the nation.
Wrt Kosovo, this was sold, and I think rightly, as a humanitarian crisis. Most Republicans/conservatives in the U.S., as I recall, strongly opposed it—which says a lot about how little American economic interests had to do with it--with Clinton arguing that we couldn’t allow the slaughter to continue. In fact, I remember at the time thinking how odd it was to have American intervention in a foreign war supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.
Putin himself notes this in the link, but argues that that has nothing to do with the legality question. But it does undercut his argument that there was some kind of necessity for Russia to intervene. There is a general if not explicit nor always enforced international disgust at slaughter and other crimes on this scale, and this didn’t obviously apply to Crimea. Putin’s focus on the strict question of legality and precedent glosses over this.
And he doesn’t note another important difference between Kosovo and Crimea. The former intervention was by a coalition of Western nations, none of which had a direct interest in the territory at stake in anything the way Russia has a direct interest in Crimea. Again, I note that American fat cats were not looking to get in on a mother lode of natural resources, as they were in Iraq. Russia has an obvious economic interest in Crimea and the port, beyond the question of all the ethnic Russians living there.
And again, Putin’s description of the voting results simply ignores the much different numbers reported elsewhere. Nader claims that under any circumstances, a majority would have supported reunification with Russia, but doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Not saying he's wrong, but a statement that important should have evidence.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Merckx index said:
...really wish that people would quit replaying this Wrong Wing talking point because it is categorically wrong...Bush won because of some of the most amazing judicial BS in American history....in fact a newspaper, whose name escapes me right now, analysed that election and that analysis showed that Gore actually won Florida....
Cheers
the Smiths have a tune titled Big Mouth Sriikes Again.I am not sure it has anything to do with GW Bush but it should have
Merckx index said:
You're points are well taken and you're asking some interesting (albeit splitting hairs at times questions). It really does come down to perception. Are Russia's actions thus far (regarding Crimea) illogical and surprising? I'd suggest they aren't.
I have very little understanding of the situation and certainly no personal ties to what's happening, as such I appreciate as much context as I can get.
A Fleeting Triumph?
Crimea Annexes Russia
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/10/crimea-annexes-russia/
Historical Trigger Points
Viewing the Ukraine Crisis From Russia’s Perspective
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/28/viewing-the-ukraine-crisis-from-russias-perspective/
I could probably find a lot more at Global Research, Anti-War, Truthdig, etc. I don't know. Who's making up the rules anyway? It seems pretty clear Crimea would join Russia anywhichway but maybe you know better?
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
....here is the latest from Mike Whitney on the Ukrainian situation....the title seems very much at odds with the view pushed by Western MSM ( but it does have the marked advantage of being able to explain the strange lack of support the push into Eastern Ukraine from the general populace, as in, the existing "real" troops aren't fighting and there is no rush of volunteers to join the fight....apart of course, from the fascist scum, who are on record as advocating genocidal ethnic cleansing and are more than happy to bomb civilian areas into the stone age...)
"Obama’s “Catastrophic Defeat” in Ukraine"
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08...ampaign=obamas-catastrophic-defeat-in-Ukraine
Cheers
"Obama’s “Catastrophic Defeat” in Ukraine"
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08...ampaign=obamas-catastrophic-defeat-in-Ukraine
Cheers
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Amsterhammer said:
Originally Posted by The Hitch View Post
.....an astonishing amount of insight and common sense.....
...funny but when I see common sense used to buttress a point I think of the Albert Einstein quote wherein he said the following...
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
...so in essence you are saying an typical adolescent mind would be cool with this, therefore it is officially cool....yup that is real cool right there...
Cheers
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
ToreBear said:
I was talking about the circumstances that led to national identity, which, in this case, go back to the early Middle Ages.
They had to do with a kultur that was generated by a linguistic metamorphosis, since the then primal Slavic tongue wasn't convenient to spread the Gospel, for which the monks I mentioned coined a new one, based on Byzantine Greek.
The fact remains that Russia feels its place to be within that orthodox realm, for which, even despite communism, Putin has made a neo-strong bond with the orthodox hierarchy.
In fact, the question goes beyond strategic, military and economic interests and into that realm of "histoire" that few are actualy considering from Moscow's point of view.
laurel1969
BANNED
- Aug 21, 2014
- 423
- 2
- 0
I think they are also disregarding internal Russian politics and Putin's manoeuvring to offset the ousting of the pro-Russian President of Ukraine. Whilst he may be a tyrant, he isn't a dictator.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
Putin's foreign advisor worth listening to.blutto said:
Even though i maintain a skepticism and distance, atleast it was not the shrill Beeb or CNN version...
what was Python's opinion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cikvqdMRTTA#t=11
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
rhubroma said:
...that "histoire" thang of which you speak is just a high falutin' word for important facts ain't it?...and we don't need no liberal biased facts to gum up a great story about good guys in white hats and gol-darn god hatin' commies...
...like don't you know nutin'....you sound like a self-loathing yanqui...
...so the story so far, good guys against the bad guys, and no facts required, just inflammatory headlines...
Cheers
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram