Crimean parliament asks to join Russia

  • 158 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by gamerguru100 (10502 posts) -

Link

Well, I suppose it's not surprising they want to join Russia considering most Crimeans are ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers, but then again, Russia sent troops there, which is pissing off Ukraine. So who knows what will happen next. I wonder what ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea feel about this.

#2 Posted by ferrari2001 (16821 posts) -

Yea this is shaping up to be an international shit storm. No European Nation will recognize Crimea as a legitimate part of Russia. And even if they did it would show Russia that they can pretty much do whatever they want and conquer whatever lands they feel are theirs. Putin is seeing how far he can push the international community, which is taking far to long to put economic sanctions in place.

#3 Edited by Kevlar101 (6075 posts) -

This is big

#4 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

#5 Posted by lamprey263 (23202 posts) -

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/03/04/meet_goblin_moscows_man_in_crimea.html

SIMFEROPOL, UKRAINE—Strip away the propaganda from the chaos in Crimea, and this much is certain: last Thursday morning a political farce played out here in the regional capital.

It started with anonymous gunmen storming parliament house in a bloodless pre-dawn raid. By sunrise, the Russian flag was flying high above an occupied government house.

Lawmakers were summoned, stripped of their cellphones as they entered the chamber. The Crimean media was banished. Then, behind closed doors, Crimea’s government was dismissed and a new one formed, with Sergey Aksyonov, head of the Russian Unity party, installed as Crimea’s new premier.

seems like a farce to me

#6 Edited by comp_atkins (31278 posts) -

#7 Edited by ferrari2001 (16821 posts) -

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

#8 Posted by gamerguru100 (10502 posts) -

I've been reading around and apparently 73% of Russians (in Russia) don't approve of Putin's actions. Apparently many Russians have relatives in Ukraine and also feel that Ukrainians are family to them (as an ethnic group) since they both share Slavic heritage. The last thing they want is a war between the two largest Slavic nations on Earth.

Link

Oh, and apparently the Kremlin has been trying to brainwash Russians into thinking the Ukrainian revolution was a result of an American alliance with Nazis to weaken Russia. I wasn't aware this was 1944. Good to know most Russians disagree with Putin. I've also read that Putin is making moves on Ukraine because he's afraid he'll be ousted at home like Viktor Yanukovych was in the Ukrainian revolution.

#9 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

#10 Posted by Master_Live (14200 posts) -

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

I don't know, the other 40% of Crimeans?

#11 Posted by playmynutz (5981 posts) -

This is big

You called it my friend. This is big.

#12 Posted by Newhopes (4512 posts) -

Some idiots on those forums don't really have a clue, the Crimea is basically part of Russia and has been since the Russian empire took it from the ottomans 2-3 hundred years ago it was only added from Russia to the Ukraine in the 1950's, since the break up off the Union it's been near enough semi-autonomous with high tensions since large % of the population wants to rejoin Russia.

#13 Posted by Newhopes (4512 posts) -

I've been reading around and apparently 73% of Russians (in Russia) don't approve of Putin's actions. Apparently many Russians have relatives in Ukraine and also feel that Ukrainians are family to them (as an ethnic group) since they both share Slavic heritage. The last thing they want is a war between the two largest Slavic nations on Earth.

Link

Oh, and apparently the Kremlin has been trying to brainwash Russians into thinking the Ukrainian revolution was a result of an American alliance with Nazis to weaken Russia. I wasn't aware this was 1944. Good to know most Russians disagree with Putin. I've also read that Putin is making moves on Ukraine because he's afraid he'll be ousted at home like Viktor Yanukovych was in the Ukrainian revolution.

It's actually the other way round Putins approval rating is at the highest it's been in years due to whats happening, overall the Russian people see this as western backed aggression directed against Russia.

Putin 69.8% approvel

Obama 38%

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/03/07/Putin-the-Great-Russians-Love-the-Ukraine-Crisis

#14 Edited by Chaos_HL21 (5287 posts) -

@Newhopes: Just because it was part of Russia doesn't give the Russians the right to annex it.

Also some more news from the Crimea. Seems the "Pro-Russian 'Self-Defense'" Force is trying to take over an Ukrainian military base. There was also that story about armed men cornering an UN Envoy in Crimea

It seems that this 'Self-Defense' force is causing some pretty serious problems.

#15 Edited by Newhopes (4512 posts) -

It's been happening for a few days now, the Pro-Russian elements in east and south of the country are starting to kick off and want a referendum with the west not wanting the country to spilt up it'll probably end up as a civil war.

#16 Posted by one_plum (6348 posts) -

So let me get this straight.

A group of Ukrainians overthrew their democratically-elected government. The Crimeans didn't like that so they want to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. In response, Russia sent troops in Crimea.

Russia is probably not entirely innocent in the whole matter, but If I were to go by this version of this story, then Ukraine is mostly at fault, unless if I'm missing something. Imagine NATO's response if a democratic western nation was overthrown by a violent group...

#17 Posted by Chaos_HL21 (5287 posts) -

@one_plum: Well the Russians sent troops and an armed pro-Russian "self-defense" (which Putin claims he doesn't have control over) popped up. This 'Self-defense" force attempted to storm an Ukrainian military post. Pro-Russian forces also cornered an UN envoy which is in the Crimea, and there is reports of media members being beaten by pro-Russians forces. A question is, is this a legitimate call to join Russia or is these Russian forces influencing the vote?

#18 Posted by Newhopes (4512 posts) -

@one_plum said:

So let me get this straight.

A group of Ukrainians overthrew their democratically-elected government. The Crimeans didn't like that so they want to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. In response, Russia sent troops in Crimea.

Russia is probably not entirely innocent in the whole matter, but If I were to go by this version of this story, then Ukraine is mostly at fault, unless if I'm missing something. Imagine NATO's response if a democratic western nation was overthrown by a violent group...

Basically, what makes it worse is large part of the group that took over is near enough a Neo-nazi anti Russian organisation which will rile up the largely Russian eastern and and southern areas.

#19 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

@Newhopes said:

@one_plum said:

So let me get this straight.

A group of Ukrainians overthrew their democratically-elected government. The Crimeans didn't like that so they want to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. In response, Russia sent troops in Crimea.

Russia is probably not entirely innocent in the whole matter, but If I were to go by this version of this story, then Ukraine is mostly at fault, unless if I'm missing something. Imagine NATO's response if a democratic western nation was overthrown by a violent group...

Basically, what makes it worse is large part of the group that took over is near enough a Neo-nazi anti Russian organisation which will rile up the largely Russian eastern and and southern areas.

Btw, has the mainstream, western media bothered to mention that this organization is indeed, neo-nazi? They do plenty of condemning of Russia but not the nazis that have taken over the government, So nazis are not so bad after all?

#20 Posted by GazaAli (22540 posts) -

I've been reading around and apparently 73% of Russians (in Russia) don't approve of Putin's actions. Apparently many Russians have relatives in Ukraine and also feel that Ukrainians are family to them (as an ethnic group) since they both share Slavic heritage. The last thing they want is a war between the two largest Slavic nations on Earth.

Link

Oh, and apparently the Kremlin has been trying to brainwash Russians into thinking the Ukrainian revolution was a result of an American alliance with Nazis to weaken Russia. I wasn't aware this was 1944. Good to know most Russians disagree with Putin. I've also read that Putin is making moves on Ukraine because he's afraid he'll be ousted at home like Viktor Yanukovych was in the Ukrainian revolution.

You can't honestly believe this...

How is it possible that 73% of Russians don't approve of Putin's actions yet the vast majority of Crimean will be voting yes in the upcoming referendum to join Russia?
Also given the size of the Russian population, and the size of the Ukrainian and more specifically the Crimean population, how would the fact that some Russians have relatives over there result in such a severe plummet of Putin's approval rate? And that's not taking into account the ideological and social composition of the Russian society because my guess is generally speaking and in best case scenario, the Russians would only be apathetic about the whole thing. My intuition however tells me that majority of Russians support this move, they see in it an expression of Putin's leadership and aspiration to take Russia to its former glory. Fear of war is pretty much irrelevant, the Ukraine is not stupid enough to go to war with Russia and I think it has become fairly obvious by now that neither the U.S nor the EU is willing to militarily intervene in the situation. Given all of that, I can't conceive the possibility that anything of what you said holds at all, its simply completely detached from reality.

And regarding the brainwashing part, it wouldn't be the first time that the U.S did such a thing. Basically, the uprisings that happened so far in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and the Ukraine bear hard to ignore resemblances to one another. Condoleezza Rice herself said it, at least in regard to redrawing the map of the Middle East: "Creative chaos". That phone call that has been leaked in February featuring two secretary of state top officials talking about the situation and their allies in the opposition, who to choose for what position, the shape of the new government...etc tells you something about this. Also the support the fascist brotherhood received from the Obama administration and from Jimmy Carter before the dreaded presidential elections of 2012 and the American reaction to the 30th, June revolution tell you more about this "creative chaos". Strangely enough, the U.S did not give two fucks about the fascist actions and violence of Muris' regime during the one year reign of the fascist brotherhood in Egypt. Obama himself was planning on receiving Mursi in the White House in April, 2013 I think but apparently he couldn't because Mursi and his regime were too "hot", you know, like they say "the LZ is hot".

Now to Putin's fear from being ousted. Not Gonna Happen, period. Not because he's superman, and certainly not because of his infallible leadership and the Utopia he built in Russia. Rather, it won't happen simply because Russia right now is better than it ever was, at least for the past 3 decades or so. Needless to say, things turned to shit towards the end of the Soviet era so the USSR was finally dissolved and Russians started to hope that things will get better. The irony was that they got worse. Yeltsin was too dumb to take Russia into prosperity. Basically he didn't know a thing about economics and neither did his regime. The state's property was being wasted through his ignorance of market economy and privatization. He prostituted himself to what is known as "the Russian Oligarchs", a group of brutal, ruthless, shady (to put it mildly) and megalomaniac businessmen who almost sucked Russia dry. In addition, Russia was not doing well in terms of security. The war with Chechnya was poorly managed, the communists were still unable to let go and were in constant hostility with Yeltsin and crime was on the rise.
Then Putin came along and greatly improved on much of that. He kicked out the Oligarchs and took back as much as possible of them before they either fled the country or were thrown in jail. Homogeneity of the political and social order was restored, at least to a great extend. The Russian economy has become an actual economy. Order was restored. In short Russia finally made the transition out of the Soviet era. Moreover, for the first time in a long while, Russia has a strong leader that is perceived as capable of reestablishing its former glory and national spirit, not to mention his "spiritual" and charismatic persona that he boasts rather extravagantly and lavishly, and how it resonates with the Russian society and some parts of the world. So I feel inclined to doubt that Putin would fear for himself because of what happened in the Ukraine.

#21 Posted by Newhopes (4512 posts) -

@Newhopes said:

@one_plum said:

So let me get this straight.

A group of Ukrainians overthrew their democratically-elected government. The Crimeans didn't like that so they want to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. In response, Russia sent troops in Crimea.

Russia is probably not entirely innocent in the whole matter, but If I were to go by this version of this story, then Ukraine is mostly at fault, unless if I'm missing something. Imagine NATO's response if a democratic western nation was overthrown by a violent group...

Basically, what makes it worse is large part of the group that took over is near enough a Neo-nazi anti Russian organisation which will rile up the largely Russian eastern and and southern areas.

Btw, has the mainstream, western media bothered to mention that this organization is indeed, neo-nazi? They do plenty of condemning of Russia but not the nazis that have taken over the government, So nazis are not so bad after all?

Almost nothing in the mainstream media apart from the US government trying to deny Svoboda is a Neo-nazi group.

#22 Posted by Boddicker (2522 posts) -

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

Pretty much this. Russia owned Crimea until the 50's. Let them take it back.

#23 Edited by Reaper4278 (337 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

I will give you Iraq and Libya (though I think "crimes of aggression" is a bit dramatic), but Afghanistan? Before I go any further I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

#24 Edited by Reaper4278 (337 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

Pretty much this. Russia owned Crimea until the 50's. Let them take it back.

I fail to see your logic here. I think Mexico owned most of California at one time, does that mean they have a right to invade and take it back as well? Not that this would ever happen, just comparing apples to apples here.

#25 Posted by Newhopes (4512 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

I will give you Iraq and Libya, but Afghanistan? Before I go any further I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

Iraq,Afghanistan,Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Dominican republic, Cuba, Libya, Yeman, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, liberia, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Chile, Laos, vietnam ETC

#26 Edited by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

@Newhopes said:

@reaper4278 said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

I will give you Iraq and Libya, but Afghanistan? Before I go any further I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

Iraq,Afghanistan,Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Dominican republic, Cuba, Libya, Yeman, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, liberia, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Chile, Laos, vietnam ETC

What country are you from? I could take nearly any country in the world and make a list just as long from its history. You forgot to mention the indians.

So anyway.....tell me about Haiti lol. I would also like to hear how going into Afghanistan was a crime of aggression. Please explain, I can't wait.

#27 Posted by Newhopes (4512 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

@Newhopes said:

@reaper4278 said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

I will give you Iraq and Libya, but Afghanistan? Before I go any further I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

Iraq,Afghanistan,Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Dominican republic, Cuba, Libya, Yeman, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, liberia, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Chile, Laos, vietnam ETC

What country are you from? I could take nearly any country in the world and make a list just as long from its history. You forgot to mention the indians.

So anyway.....tell me about Haiti lol. I would also like to hear how going into Afghanistan was a crime of aggression. Please explain, I can't wait.

Since WW2 the US has ignored the sovereignty of 60-70+ countries, from outright invasion to military strikes and backing coups.

#28 Edited by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

@Newhopes said:

@vfibsux said:

@Newhopes said:

@reaper4278 said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

I will give you Iraq and Libya, but Afghanistan? Before I go any further I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

Iraq,Afghanistan,Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Dominican republic, Cuba, Libya, Yeman, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, liberia, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Chile, Laos, vietnam ETC

What country are you from? I could take nearly any country in the world and make a list just as long from its history. You forgot to mention the indians.

So anyway.....tell me about Haiti lol. I would also like to hear how going into Afghanistan was a crime of aggression. Please explain, I can't wait.

Since WW2 the US has ignored the sovereignty of 60-70+ countries, from outright invasion to military strikes and backing coups.

You're boring me dude, are you going to answer my question or just keep coughing up the same old tired U.S. hater bullshit? Tell me how we had no right to go into Afghanistan please. Do you even know why we went in?

#29 Posted by Newhopes (4512 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

@Newhopes said:

@vfibsux said:

@Newhopes said:

@reaper4278 said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

I will give you Iraq and Libya, but Afghanistan? Before I go any further I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

Iraq,Afghanistan,Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Dominican republic, Cuba, Libya, Yeman, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, liberia, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Chile, Laos, vietnam ETC

What country are you from? I could take nearly any country in the world and make a list just as long from its history. You forgot to mention the indians.

So anyway.....tell me about Haiti lol. I would also like to hear how going into Afghanistan was a crime of aggression. Please explain, I can't wait.

Since WW2 the US has ignored the sovereignty of 60-70+ countries, from outright invasion to military strikes and backing coups.

You're boring me dude, are you going to answer my question or just keep coughing up the same old tired U.S. hater bullshit? Tell me how we had no right to go into Afghanistan please. Do you even know why we went in?

Then answer me this why is the US aggressively interfering especially in support of a known neo-nazi group that headed the coup?

#30 Posted by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

@Newhopes said:

@vfibsux said:

@Newhopes said:

@vfibsux said:

@Newhopes said:

@reaper4278 said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

I will give you Iraq and Libya, but Afghanistan? Before I go any further I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

Iraq,Afghanistan,Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Dominican republic, Cuba, Libya, Yeman, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, liberia, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Chile, Laos, vietnam ETC

What country are you from? I could take nearly any country in the world and make a list just as long from its history. You forgot to mention the indians.

So anyway.....tell me about Haiti lol. I would also like to hear how going into Afghanistan was a crime of aggression. Please explain, I can't wait.

Since WW2 the US has ignored the sovereignty of 60-70+ countries, from outright invasion to military strikes and backing coups.

You're boring me dude, are you going to answer my question or just keep coughing up the same old tired U.S. hater bullshit? Tell me how we had no right to go into Afghanistan please. Do you even know why we went in?

Then answer me this why is the US aggressively interfering especially in support of a known neo-nazi group that headed the coup?

Goodbye tool, I don't play this leftist game with your kind. Answering questions with more questions is just bullshit for "I don't have a clue."

#31 Posted by airshocker (29048 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

#33 Posted by airshocker (29048 posts) -
@GazaAli said:

@gamerguru100 said:

I've been reading around and apparently 73% of Russians (in Russia) don't approve of Putin's actions. Apparently many Russians have relatives in Ukraine and also feel that Ukrainians are family to them (as an ethnic group) since they both share Slavic heritage. The last thing they want is a war between the two largest Slavic nations on Earth.

Link

Oh, and apparently the Kremlin has been trying to brainwash Russians into thinking the Ukrainian revolution was a result of an American alliance with Nazis to weaken Russia. I wasn't aware this was 1944. Good to know most Russians disagree with Putin. I've also read that Putin is making moves on Ukraine because he's afraid he'll be ousted at home like Viktor Yanukovych was in the Ukrainian revolution.

You can't honestly believe this...

How is it possible that 73% of Russians don't approve of Putin's actions yet the vast majority of Crimean will be voting yes in the upcoming referendum to join Russia?

Also given the size of the Russian population, and the size of the Ukrainian and more specifically the Crimean population, how would the fact that some Russians have relatives over there result in such a severe plummet of Putin's approval rate? And that's not taking into account the ideological and social composition of the Russian society because my guess is generally speaking and in best case scenario, the Russians would only be apathetic about the whole thing. My intuition however tells me that majority of Russians support this move, they see in it an expression of Putin's leadership and aspiration to take Russia to its former glory. Fear of war is pretty much irrelevant, the Ukraine is not stupid enough to go to war with Russia and I think it has become fairly obvious by now that neither the U.S nor the EU is willing to militarily intervene in the situation. Given all of that, I can't conceive the possibility that anything of what you said holds at all, its simply completely detached from reality.

And regarding the brainwashing part, it wouldn't be the first time that the U.S did such a thing. Basically, the uprisings that happened so far in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and the Ukraine bear hard to ignore resemblances to one another. Condoleezza Rice herself said it, at least in regard to redrawing the map of the Middle East: "Creative chaos". That phone call that has been leaked in February featuring two secretary of state top officials talking about the situation and their allies in the opposition, who to choose for what position, the shape of the new government...etc tells you something about this. Also the support the fascist brotherhood received from the Obama administration and from Jimmy Carter before the dreaded presidential elections of 2012 and the American reaction to the 30th, June revolution tell you more about this "creative chaos". Strangely enough, the U.S did not give two fucks about the fascist actions and violence of Muris' regime during the one year reign of the fascist brotherhood in Egypt. Obama himself was planning on receiving Mursi in the White House in April, 2013 I think but apparently he couldn't because Mursi and his regime were too "hot", you know, like they say "the LZ is hot".

Now to Putin's fear from being ousted. Not Gonna Happen, period. Not because he's superman, and certainly not because of his infallible leadership and the Utopia he built in Russia. Rather, it won't happen simply because Russia right now is better than it ever was, at least for the past 3 decades or so. Needless to say, things turned to shit towards the end of the Soviet era so the USSR was finally dissolved and Russians started to hope that things will get better. The irony was that they got worse. Yeltsin was too dumb to take Russia into prosperity. Basically he didn't know a thing about economics and neither did his regime. The state's property was being wasted through his ignorance of market economy and privatization. He prostituted himself to what is known as "the Russian Oligarchs", a group of brutal, ruthless, shady (to put it mildly) and megalomaniac businessmen who almost sucked Russia dry. In addition, Russia was not doing well in terms of security. The war with Chechnya was poorly managed, the communists were still unable to let go and were in constant hostility with Yeltsin and crime was on the rise.

Then Putin came along and greatly improved on much of that. He kicked out the Oligarchs and took back as much as possible of them before they either fled the country or were thrown in jail. Homogeneity of the political and social order was restored, at least to a great extend. The Russian economy has become an actual economy. Order was restored. In short Russia finally made the transition out of the Soviet era. Moreover, for the first time in a long while, Russia has a strong leader that is perceived as capable of reestablishing its former glory and national spirit, not to mention his "spiritual" and charismatic persona that he boasts rather extravagantly and lavishly, and how it resonates with the Russian society and some parts of the world. So I feel inclined to doubt that Putin would fear for himself because of what happened in the Ukraine.


Where has the US ever attempted brainwashing...? I don't think you understand what the word truly means.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised: "Derp, I hate America, derp."

#34 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

#35 Posted by airshocker (29048 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

#36 Posted by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

And who the fuck are you to speak for everyone? The majority of the people here probably think you're are just as much the anti-American asshat we think you are, they just don't bother with you. I for one will keep reminding you how full of shit you are.

#37 Posted by Kevlar101 (6075 posts) -

@Kevlar101 said:

This is big

You called it my friend. This is big.

I was just making a passing comment, I didn't care for discussion.

#38 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

Well, you'd be wrong as usual. Go to my thread; the majority of the users there find Kerry's remarks to be hypocritical...and laughable.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/kerry-you-don-t-invade-another-country-on-phony-pr-31118934/?page=1

#40 Posted by airshocker (29048 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

Well, you'd be wrong as usual. Go to my thread; the majority of the users there find Kerry's remarks to be hypocritical...and laughable.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/kerry-you-don-t-invade-another-country-on-phony-pr-31118934/?page=1

You're calling me wrong and yet you're talking about Kerry's remarks when I made no mention of any such thing? I think you need to learn how to read. I know, it isn't your forte. I've got some second grade books that may be able to help you, though.

#41 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

Well, you'd be wrong as usual. Go to my thread; the majority of the users there find Kerry's remarks to be hypocritical...and laughable.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/kerry-you-don-t-invade-another-country-on-phony-pr-31118934/?page=1

You're calling me wrong and yet you're talking about Kerry's remarks when I made no mention of any such thing? I think you need to learn how to read. I know, it isn't your forte. I've got some second grade books that may be able to help you, though.

Wow...that was quite lame. Go back to name calling; wit really isn't your forte.

#42 Posted by airshocker (29048 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

Well, you'd be wrong as usual. Go to my thread; the majority of the users there find Kerry's remarks to be hypocritical...and laughable.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/kerry-you-don-t-invade-another-country-on-phony-pr-31118934/?page=1

You're calling me wrong and yet you're talking about Kerry's remarks when I made no mention of any such thing? I think you need to learn how to read. I know, it isn't your forte. I've got some second grade books that may be able to help you, though.

Wow...that was quite lame. Go back to name calling; wit really isn't your forte.

I'm not the one that just fail-boated by trying to call another person wrong and using a thread as proof that doesn't even prove what you were trying to say. Rofl. Moron.

#43 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

Well, you'd be wrong as usual. Go to my thread; the majority of the users there find Kerry's remarks to be hypocritical...and laughable.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/kerry-you-don-t-invade-another-country-on-phony-pr-31118934/?page=1

You're calling me wrong and yet you're talking about Kerry's remarks when I made no mention of any such thing? I think you need to learn how to read. I know, it isn't your forte. I've got some second grade books that may be able to help you, though.

Ugh...boy you're gonna be a beat cop for the rest of your life. You mentioned "moral equivocation ." Well, that "equivocation" was elaborated in Kerry's remarks. I was referring to the thread to suggest that most folks in my thread find the US's moral high ground to be the hypocritical; Russia invades, the US invades. What's the difference? There is no difference.

#44 Posted by airshocker (29048 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

Well, you'd be wrong as usual. Go to my thread; the majority of the users there find Kerry's remarks to be hypocritical...and laughable.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/kerry-you-don-t-invade-another-country-on-phony-pr-31118934/?page=1

You're calling me wrong and yet you're talking about Kerry's remarks when I made no mention of any such thing? I think you need to learn how to read. I know, it isn't your forte. I've got some second grade books that may be able to help you, though.

Ugh...boy you're gonna be a beat cop for the rest of your life. You mentioned "moral equivocation ." Well, that "equivocation" was elaborated in Kerry's remarks. I was referring to the thread to suggest that most folks in my thread find the US's moral high ground to be the hypocritical; Russia invades, the US invades. What's the difference? There is no difference.

You have no idea what a beat cop is. If you had you'd realize beat cops refer to cops in metropolitan cities: New York City, LA, Chicago, Miami, Boston, to name a few. What I am is a patrol officer second grade. I don't walk a beat. I respond in an area that is five times larger than any area walked by an NYPD PO. So if you want to bring my job into things, at least be SORT OF accurate. I don't comment on your career because I quite frankly don't give a shit what you do, nor do I even have the slightest idea of what it is.

No, I said that most folks believe what Russia is doing is wrong. What I said has nothing to do with your thread. So you using it as proof is stupid. Understand now?

#45 Posted by uninspiredcup (7865 posts) -

I hope no old people are having flashbacks to World War II.

#46 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -

This whole thing is a laughing stock to see both sides - the hypocrisy of the western governments and Putins attempt to show Russia still is not over, and the endless propaganda on both sides just shows how much control they have over the media and how it influences peoples views, this is a war of propaganda. Both sides are as bad as each other.

#47 Edited by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:
@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

Well, you'd be wrong as usual. Go to my thread; the majority of the users there find Kerry's remarks to be hypocritical...and laughable.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/kerry-you-don-t-invade-another-country-on-phony-pr-31118934/?page=1

You're calling me wrong and yet you're talking about Kerry's remarks when I made no mention of any such thing? I think you need to learn how to read. I know, it isn't your forte. I've got some second grade books that may be able to help you, though.

Ugh...boy you're gonna be a beat cop for the rest of your life. You mentioned "moral equivocation ." Well, that "equivocation" was elaborated in Kerry's remarks. I was referring to the thread to suggest that most folks in my thread find the US's moral high ground to be the hypocritical; Russia invades, the US invades. What's the difference? There is no difference.

You have no idea what a beat cop is. If you had you'd realize beat cops refer to cops in metropolitan cities: New York City, LA, Chicago, Miami, Boston, to name a few. What I am is a patrol officer second grade. I don't walk a beat. I respond in an area that is five times larger than any area walked by an NYPD PO. So if you want to bring my job into things, at least be SORT OF accurate. I don't comment on your career because I quite frankly don't give a shit what you do, nor do I even have the slightest idea of what it is.

No, I said that most folks believe what Russia is doing is wrong. What I said has nothing to do with your thread. So you using it as proof is stupid. Understand now?

Okay, so you're in your car instead of on foot. Okay...fine. As far as Russia goes, you mentioned "moral equivocation." Elaborate on that, please.

#48 Posted by comp_atkins (31278 posts) -

there is no simple answer to this. one on hand, if a region of a country legitimately identifies themselves to be part of another nation, not their current host nation, wouldn't it make sense for them to secede? we'd probably have a lot less problems on earth by not having to enforce borders between people because of arbitrary lines drawn on a map decades or centuries ago. on the other hand, a foreign force can't just stroll into a another sovereign country ( even if that region WANTS to join that other nation ) and claim it as their own. that's fucking ridiculous. that's how big ugly ass wars start.

#49 Posted by GazaAli (22540 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

You can't honestly believe this...

How is it possible that 73% of Russians don't approve of Putin's actions yet the vast majority of Crimean will be voting yes in the upcoming referendum to join Russia?

Also given the size of the Russian population, and the size of the Ukrainian and more specifically the Crimean population, how would the fact that some Russians have relatives over there result in such a severe plummet of Putin's approval rate? And that's not taking into account the ideological and social composition of the Russian society because my guess is generally speaking and in best case scenario, the Russians would only be apathetic about the whole thing. My intuition however tells me that majority of Russians support this move, they see in it an expression of Putin's leadership and aspiration to take Russia to its former glory. Fear of war is pretty much irrelevant, the Ukraine is not stupid enough to go to war with Russia and I think it has become fairly obvious by now that neither the U.S nor the EU is willing to militarily intervene in the situation. Given all of that, I can't conceive the possibility that anything of what you said holds at all, its simply completely detached from reality.

And regarding the brainwashing part, it wouldn't be the first time that the U.S did such a thing. Basically, the uprisings that happened so far in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and the Ukraine bear hard to ignore resemblances to one another. Condoleezza Rice herself said it, at least in regard to redrawing the map of the Middle East: "Creative chaos". That phone call that has been leaked in February featuring two secretary of state top officials talking about the situation and their allies in the opposition, who to choose for what position, the shape of the new government...etc tells you something about this. Also the support the fascist brotherhood received from the Obama administration and from Jimmy Carter before the dreaded presidential elections of 2012 and the American reaction to the 30th, June revolution tell you more about this "creative chaos". Strangely enough, the U.S did not give two fucks about the fascist actions and violence of Muris' regime during the one year reign of the fascist brotherhood in Egypt. Obama himself was planning on receiving Mursi in the White House in April, 2013 I think but apparently he couldn't because Mursi and his regime were too "hot", you know, like they say "the LZ is hot".

Now to Putin's fear from being ousted. Not Gonna Happen, period. Not because he's superman, and certainly not because of his infallible leadership and the Utopia he built in Russia. Rather, it won't happen simply because Russia right now is better than it ever was, at least for the past 3 decades or so. Needless to say, things turned to shit towards the end of the Soviet era so the USSR was finally dissolved and Russians started to hope that things will get better. The irony was that they got worse. Yeltsin was too dumb to take Russia into prosperity. Basically he didn't know a thing about economics and neither did his regime. The state's property was being wasted through his ignorance of market economy and privatization. He prostituted himself to what is known as "the Russian Oligarchs", a group of brutal, ruthless, shady (to put it mildly) and megalomaniac businessmen who almost sucked Russia dry. In addition, Russia was not doing well in terms of security. The war with Chechnya was poorly managed, the communists were still unable to let go and were in constant hostility with Yeltsin and crime was on the rise.

Then Putin came along and greatly improved on much of that. He kicked out the Oligarchs and took back as much as possible of them before they either fled the country or were thrown in jail. Homogeneity of the political and social order was restored, at least to a great extend. The Russian economy has become an actual economy. Order was restored. In short Russia finally made the transition out of the Soviet era. Moreover, for the first time in a long while, Russia has a strong leader that is perceived as capable of reestablishing its former glory and national spirit, not to mention his "spiritual" and charismatic persona that he boasts rather extravagantly and lavishly, and how it resonates with the Russian society and some parts of the world. So I feel inclined to doubt that Putin would fear for himself because of what happened in the Ukraine.

Where has the US ever attempted brainwashing...? I don't think you understand what the word truly means.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised: "Derp, I hate America, derp."

I was referring to the contents of the said brainwashing genius. I honestly can't see how someone would unintentionally miss that given the explanation that followed. But I guess you would do anything to undermine and discredit me.

#50 Posted by airshocker (29048 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:
@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@airshocker said:

@thebest31406 said:

@ferrari2001 said:
@thebest31406 said:

So let them join. Who cares? I mean...really, who cares?

We should all care. By letting Russia essential annex a part of another sovereign nation we are basically showing Russia that their actions against other nations will be essentially ignored by the international community. This would essentially be like an occupying force moving into a U.S. state, taking over the state government and separating itself from the rest of the country. It's nothing shy of occupation which is an act of war. If we let Russia do this we basically tell them that invading other countries will be ignored by the international community. It sets a bad precedent for a power hungry Russian government and could lead to serious political and social repercussions.

A powerful nation that violates national sovereignty despite international opposition is unprecedented? We've been living in that world for a while now. The crimes of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are the most recent examples. .

See, you very much like to simplify things so that they skew to your point of view.

Iraq and Afghanistan never became part of the US, nor did we even attempt anything of the kind. Afghanistan was also justified with a valid declaration of war from Congress. But yes, gloss right on over those things. We all see how ridiculously biased you are.

What do you mean "we all see?" As if people here are in line with your opinions. No one here supports you. No one here likes you.

Most people are. Most people generally agree that what Russia is doing is wrong. You and Gaza are pretty much the only ones here touting this moral equivalence bullshit and attempting to spin this as if Russia is doing a good thing. Give me a break. You honestly think I give a shit if you or Gaza don't like me? Please. I think I've made it pretty clear in previous threads how I feel about you.

Well, you'd be wrong as usual. Go to my thread; the majority of the users there find Kerry's remarks to be hypocritical...and laughable.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/kerry-you-don-t-invade-another-country-on-phony-pr-31118934/?page=1

You're calling me wrong and yet you're talking about Kerry's remarks when I made no mention of any such thing? I think you need to learn how to read. I know, it isn't your forte. I've got some second grade books that may be able to help you, though.

Ugh...boy you're gonna be a beat cop for the rest of your life. You mentioned "moral equivocation ." Well, that "equivocation" was elaborated in Kerry's remarks. I was referring to the thread to suggest that most folks in my thread find the US's moral high ground to be the hypocritical; Russia invades, the US invades. What's the difference? There is no difference.

You have no idea what a beat cop is. If you had you'd realize beat cops refer to cops in metropolitan cities: New York City, LA, Chicago, Miami, Boston, to name a few. What I am is a patrol officer second grade. I don't walk a beat. I respond in an area that is five times larger than any area walked by an NYPD PO. So if you want to bring my job into things, at least be SORT OF accurate. I don't comment on your career because I quite frankly don't give a shit what you do, nor do I even have the slightest idea of what it is.

No, I said that most folks believe what Russia is doing is wrong. What I said has nothing to do with your thread. So you using it as proof is stupid. Understand now?

Okay, so you're in your car instead of on foot. Okay...fine. As far as Russia goes, you mentioned "moral equivocation." Elaborate on that, please.

Just admit that you have absolutely no idea what I do and leave it at that. Save your dignity.

Why should I? It's irrelevant. You tried to use a thread that had nothing to do with what I'm talking about to prove me wrong and I called you out on it.