thorbotnic Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 And then we have this utter loonball... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31773941 Insanity. Yes, a small independent sovereign state should just accept the threat of its neighbouring bully - after all, its within Russia's sphere of influence. They should've been satisfied with just remaining a Soviet province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Yes, a small independent sovereign state should just accept the threat of its neighbouring bully - after all, its within Russia's sphere of influence. They should've been satisfied with just remaining a Soviet province. You're now engaging in straw-man fallacies, inventing arguments and then arguing against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) you are correct in this belief adjective: relating to or characteristic of fascism you are incorrect in this belief. EDIT: In fact this comment had me wondering whether you were trolling or not. Even if they did believe this they are far from the purest embodiment of this sentiment considering the US actions since WWII. Fascistic as an adjective is different from fascist as an adjective. Same as Marxist or Marxian.Are you suggesting that the desire to control their neighbours' politics plays no part in Russian aggression? Put your (quite legit) criticism of the US to one side for a moment and think about it. They've invaded another sovereign state! In Europe, in 2015! And while you're not trolling I do think you're too fixated on 'going against the grain' in your arguments. Edited March 7, 2015 by thorbotnic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 You're now engaging in straw-man fallacies, inventing arguments and then arguing against them. I was countering the statement that them bolstering their armed forces was insanity - given the threat they face, it makes perfect sense. Can they honestly trust Russia at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redstevie007 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I presume that they're in the country at the invitation of the Ukrainian government... Unlike the Russian troops in Ukraine, of course. If I was a citizen of of Baltic state, recently escaped from a century of Russian domination and subjugation, I would be looking in terror at the fascistic megalomania gripping the Russian government and seeking friends anywhere I could... You won't get away with kind of crazy pro-US, pro-zionist nut-jobery around here for long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Solidarity with the motherland in this time of madness and persecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Fascistic as an adjective is different from fascist as an adjective. Same as Marxist or Marxian. Are you suggesting that the desire to control their neighbours' politics plays no part in Russian aggression? Put your (quite legit) criticism of the US to one side for a moment and think about it. They've invaded another sovereign state! In Europe, in 2015! And while you're not trolling I do think you're too fixated on 'going against the grain' in your arguments. I just copy and pasted the dictionary definition of the word, however we could keep splitting atoms on semantics, but it wont alter the point it's an emotional argument to use fascism as a label as it has no clear definition and to use democracy as a good thing, rather than speaking specifically about policy etc. I think you're starting in the middle of the story by always hanging your argument on the annexation of Crimea. No event is an Island. You're ignoring the "cause and effect" portion of the argument and in my mind to make the cause and effect argument in context you need to "set the table" with current US policies, it's a series of events stretching back well over a decade that have direct consequences to what is happening , and also decades of history of interactions that colour the discourse. This starting the clock at Russia "aggressively taking Crimea" as if it popped out of nowhere is just an incomplete and naive representation of the situation as i understand it. EDIT: to answer the question of course larger countries try and control these things it's wrong, however no country can take a moral high-ground on it without coming across as completely hypocritical. There's been what 4 invasions in the 21st century, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Crimea. No doubt the Russians in Crimea are suffering the same sort of resistance that occurred in the other 3 places? Edited March 7, 2015 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy North Croy Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 I presume that they're in the country at the invitation of the Ukrainian government... Unlike the Russian troops in Ukraine, of course. No-one invited the CIA into Ukraine in 2004. I think you're actually trolling as you don't seem to know much about the conflict or it's origins but in case you're not, check out CIA in Ukraine - Orange Revolution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy North Croy Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 http://youtu.be/5KWKw1WnziY?list=PLxacU-rTTsYlUw8cTgbu99zySaHqq2HCK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watsoniansfan Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) You won't get away with kind of crazy pro-US, pro-zionist nut-jobery around here for long Er, pro-Zionist how? I think you're confusing him with N Lanarkshire Cooncil: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31727699 Time was that a small European nation being subjugated and violated by a bigger imperial power would attract universal criticism on here. Seems Britain and U.S. are the Nats' bête noire so the default position is to side with the Ruskies. Thorbotnic is one of the best posters on the board these days. Doesn't seem to have an axe to grind and tells it like it is. Edited March 7, 2015 by Watsoniansfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I just copy and pasted the dictionary definition of the word, however we could keep splitting atoms on semantics, but it wont alter the point it's an emotional argument to use fascism as a label as it has no clear definition and to use democracy as a good thing, rather than speaking specifically about policy etc. I think you're starting in the middle of the story by always hanging your argument on the annexation of Crimea. No event is an Island. You're ignoring the "cause and effect" portion of the argument and in my mind to make the cause and effect argument in context you need to "set the table" with current US policies, it's a series of events stretching back well over a decade that have direct consequences to what is happening , and also decades of history of interactions that colour the discourse. This starting the clock at Russia "aggressively taking Crimea" as if it popped out of nowhere is just an incomplete and naive representation of the situation as i understand it. EDIT: to answer the question of course larger countries try and control these things it's wrong, however no country can take a moral high-ground on it without coming across as completely hypocritical. There's been what 4 invasions in the 21st century, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Crimea. No doubt the Russians in Crimea are suffering the same sort of resistance that occurred in the other 3 places? Of course Russia taking Crimea didn't spring out of nowhere. But regardless of the historical context, they chose to pull the trigger. They committed an act of aggression, which is only justifiable under international law in certain circumstances - none of which was present. I'm not sure why I'm being attacked for pointing this out, or being accused of trolling. Of the other examples you mentioned: Iraq - unjustifiable. Afghanistan - justifiable. Sanctioned by UNSC. Libya - no invasion. Bombing not justifiable. Hypocrisy is not an argument for or against the correctness of an action or statement, as I'm sure you're aware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Of course Russia taking Crimea didn't spring out of nowhere. But regardless of the historical context, they chose to pull the trigger. They committed an act of aggression, which is only justifiable under international law in certain circumstances - none of which was present. I'm not sure why I'm being attacked for pointing this out, or being accused of trolling. Of the other examples you mentioned: Iraq - unjustifiable. Afghanistan - justifiable. Sanctioned by UNSC. Libya - no invasion. Bombing not justifiable. Hypocrisy is not an argument for or against the correctness of an action or statement, as I'm sure you're aware. No invason of Libya? You think all those "rebels" were native Libyans? This amorphous concept of "international law" as the standard for judging all actions is a ludicrous concept. Securing your peripheral military bases can often be a defensive act as well. I look about and make my own decision on something, rather than like a street preacher saying it's wrong it says so in this book. Also no one is attacking you, that's just another straw-man fallacy. you're stated position is "All this has come about because Russia thinks it has the right to control the politics of other sovereign states." when the events leading up tom this was a coup initiated by Victoria Nuland and the state department, on the back of a 2004 meddling into politics. We're allowed to disagree on things. Incidentally who or what was the act of agression committed against? The people of Crimea ostensibly voted for it. there was no legitimate government in power, funny how the coup that immediately preceeded the invasion, is not an act of aggression but the other is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Er, pro-Zionist how? I think you're confusing him with N Lanarkshire Cooncil: Thorbotnic is one of the best posters on the board these days. Doesn't seem to have an axe to grind and tells it like it is. I'm guessing redstevie's 'pro-zionist' comment was a joke. You're right about Thorbotnic though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Sure.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redstevie007 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I'm guessing redstevie's 'pro-zionist' comment was a joke. You're right about Thorbotnic though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 No invason of Libya? You think all those "rebels" were native Libyans? No other sovereign state invaded Libya. I'm sure that a lot of the rebels were from all over the middle east, and perhaps beyond - mercenaries, zealots and freebooters - but I don't think there's any evidence that the uniformed troops of another state were involved at all. It doesn't really matter, though, as the act of bombing is as much an act of aggression as invasion. This amorphous concept of "international law" as the standard for judging all actions is a ludicrous concept. International law is far from amorphous when it comes to matters of aggression, use of force and war. As a permanent member of the UNSC, Russia has decried the meddling of other powers in the internal affairs of other states - most recently Syria - as being contrary to IL (and I agree with them). They then utterly disregard international law when it comes to their dealings with Ukraine and Georgia. How are Russia's neighbours, most of whom were dominated and subjugated by Imperial Russia / USSR, supposed to react in these circumstances - when it's clear that Russia cannot be trusted to respect international borders and law, except when it favours them? They are naturally going to seek allies elsewhere. Securing your peripheral military bases can often be a defensive act as well. Only if those military bases are inside your sovereign territory! Would you support the US 'securing' its bases in Okinawa by annexing the island? Of course not. I look about and make my own decision on something, rather than like a street preacher saying it's wrong it says so in this book. Fair enough. I find it strange that your looking about always seems to lead you to a contrarian conclusion. Also no one is attacking you, that's just another straw-man fallacy. I've been accused of trolling a few times on this thread. That's an attack. you're stated position is "All this has come about because Russia thinks it has the right to control the politics of other sovereign states." when the events leading up tom this was a coup initiated by Victoria Nuland and the state department, on the back of a 2004 meddling into politics. The events leading up to this go back at least to the early 20th century, when the Baltic States and Poland first gained independence from Imperial Russia / USSR. Ever since then, Russia has sought to control the internal politics of its ex-vassals, either through invasion and subjugation (the Baltics in WW2; Georgia; Ukraine) or through establishing itself as a regional suzerain (through the Warsaw Pact, Comintern etc). My point was that Russia grants to itself the right to decide the politics of independent states which it sees as being part of its self-determined sphere of influence. Russia has always had far more influence in Ukraine than the USA or any Western power, and it has always used that influence to try and control the direction of Ukrainian policy. This is, of course, not unusual - but the steps they have recently taken go far beyond anything that could be considered normal international relations. If Russia did not feel it had the right to control the Ukraine, none of the bloodshed we have seen over the past year would have occurred. We're allowed to disagree on things. Incidentally who or what was the act of agression committed against? The act of aggression was carried out by the state of Russia against the state of Ukraine. The people of Crimea ostensibly voted for it. there was no legitimate government in power, funny how the coup that immediately preceeded the invasion, is not an act of aggression but the other is. The coup was not an act of aggression because it was internal to the state of the Ukraine (yes, I'm sure you can point to outside influences too.) Russia militarily occupied the province of Crimea, breaching their treaty obligations to the state of Ukraine (which remain regardless of the composition of the government, or whether you think it 'legitimate' or not) and then held a 'referendum' where 97% of voters backed the occupiers' supported outcome - you're honestly claiming that this indicates democratic consent? Thorbotnic is one of the best posters on the board these days. Doesn't seem to have an axe to grind and tells it like it is. You're right about Thorbotnic though. Aww . But be careful or they'll discover our Zionist cabal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunchy Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Just want to say I mostly agree with thorbotnic's post above.don't get me wrong I don't think the west\usa is squeeky clean in all this they have certainly been pushing there own agenda. The trouble on here is some come across as almost praising Russia over this in the way they post there hatred of America. Personally I think this is a very very screwed up situation and could very easily lead to a third world war. Not surprised the Baltic states are worried as well it would be quite easy for Russia to move troops into them before the west could react. If there was some way to have totally uncorupt elections in ukraine with totally independent inspectors would all sides accept the result or have things gone to far now for any side to back down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 If you quote inside quotes, it robs me of my ability to quote you back;easily. right onto the answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) "No other sovereign state invaded Libya. I'm sure that a lot of the rebels were from all over the middle east, and perhaps beyond - mercenaries, zealots and freebooters - but I don't think there's any evidence that the uniformed troops of another state were involved at all. It doesn't really matter, though, as the act of bombing is as much an act of aggression as invasion." Proxies have always been used in wars, as long as you use mercenaries one can never be accused of invading then. The guy who was in charge of Libya Abdelhakim Belhadj met with the Free Syrian Army and was a "guest" of western intelligence. Who cares what clothes the troops were wearing? like seriously that's asinine, ah Libya wasn't invaded as the people doing it weren't wearing dulex colour chart 16 on their left lapel. That's the whole point of plausible deniability. It's like saying Davie couldn't rob the store as the guy doing it was wearing a pink jumper and Davie doesn't have one. International law is far from amorphous when it comes to matters of aggression, use of force and war. As a permanent member of the UNSC, Russia has decried the meddling of other powers in the internal affairs of other states - most recently Syria - as being contrary to IL (and I agree with them). They then utterly disregard international law when it comes to their dealings with Ukraine and Georgia. How are Russia's neighbours, most of whom were dominated and subjugated by Imperial Russia / USSR, supposed to react in these circumstances - when it's clear that Russia cannot be trusted to respect international borders and law, except when it favours them? They are naturally going to seek allies elsewhere. Far from it? Really so Russia and Israel are getting treated the exact same way for "settlements"? Or Iraq before 1st gulf war, or how about Kosovo compared to Crimea. the only international court that is commonly accepted is the security council. That failed to reach any finding because Russia is on it and vetoed it. that sounds like exactly an amorphous situation, can you provide examples of your claim beyond just stating it? Yeah Russia is dodgy as feck in meddling in other countries affairs those who are close to them at least. Yeah I don't trust any country to respect national borders, especially Russia or the states, it seems you've been under the false impression that because i'm laying most of the blame on the US initiating a coup, i think Russia is to be admired, i don;t, i just think they got backed into a corner with this one, and were left with little option. It's not a mad perspective i've read high ranking former US civil servants make the same argument. Only if those military bases are inside your sovereign territory! Would you support the US 'securing' its bases in Okinawa by annexing the island? Of course not. No Russia had a treaty to have troops in Crimea, the dodginess was the election and subsequent annexe. Well looking back i supported(or would have) Kennedy;s move to blockade Cuba in october 1962 , what's the point of asking me questions if you go on and then answer them? Fair enough. I find it strange that your looking about always seems to lead you to a contrarian conclusion. This is just a case of myside fallacy you'll remember all the times i'm "contrarian" and forget all the times i'm not. Plus it's subjective; contrary to who?You? Why should that be something i think about as a standalone, obviously if you pick specific issues then there will be loads i'm mis-informed about to differing degrees. This absolutist position on always taking a contrarian conclusion for the sake of being contrary is far too general and all encompassing to take seriously. I've been accused of trolling a few times on this thread. That's an attack. I had no idea you felt contrary to me, i'll stop it now. The events leading up to this go back at least to the early 20th century, when the Baltic States and Poland first gained independence from Imperial Russia / USSR. Ever since then, Russia has sought to control the internal politics of its ex-vassals, either through invasion and subjugation (the Baltics in WW2; Georgia; Ukraine) or through establishing itself as a regional suzerain (through the Warsaw Pact, Comintern etc). My point was that Russia grants to itself the right to decide the politics of independent states which it sees as being part of its self-determined sphere of influence. Russia has always had far more influence in Ukraine than the USA or any Western power, and it has always used that influence to try and control the direction of Ukrainian policy. This is, of course, not unusual - but the steps they have recently taken go far beyond anything that could be considered normal international relations. If Russia did not feel it had the right to control the Ukraine, none of the bloodshed we have seen over the past year would have occurred. Yeah i wrote the events went back first you firstly wrote "All this has come about because Russia thinks it has the right to control the politics of other sovereign states." Since you've no changed your answer to the same as mine i no longer have an issue..obviously. Yeah super powers do nasty shit man, They killed all their dissenters too, and deliberately starved folk, invaded Afghanistan, installed puppet regimes, treated man woman child and animal abysmally. I agree Russia have acted extraordinarily in annexing Crimea. However countries have strategies and "red lines", i imagine almost losing their base at Sevastopol and Tartus (Syria) and access to the Mediterranean in less than a year might have spooked them, i suspect it was Russian Intelligence services who were leaking all the phone calls in which US state department were hand-picking the next leader months before the election. Without Context Russia was totally wrong to annexe Crimea and become party to a clandestine war in Eastern Ukraine. In the context of NATO and independent moves by the US and allies , it looks a defensive play to me, not an offensive one. In the real context as i said months ago Ukraine is fecked, badly fecked. Ukraine is the IMF's bitch now. The act of aggression was carried out by the state of Russia against the state of Ukraine. This conflict only has two players and the clock started when Russia decided to unilaterally ratify a dodgy referendum and annexe Ukraine? I'd urge you to stop this absolutist mindset and consider the nuances of the case. It's only to retain energy efficiency that the brain thinks in black and white, it's not actually how the world is. The coup was not an act of aggression because it was internal to the state of the Ukraine (yes, I'm sure you can point to outside influences too.) Russia militarily occupied the province of Crimea, breaching their treaty obligations to the state of Ukraine (which remain regardless of the composition of the government, or whether you think it 'legitimate' or not) and then held a 'referendum' where 97% of voters backed the occupiers' supported outcome - you're honestly claiming that this indicates democratic consent? But your international law holds sacred the concept of Jus gentium ,so funneling money to fund a coup, would be frowned upon, also if you're sure there are "outside" influences it's hardly "internal" is it?The latter contradicts the former You'll have to explain which rule book you're reading from to get all these axioms. I have no idea what the "rules" are regarding aggression in this context. No if you'd read my other posts, and you replied to them so i assumed you would have, i have stated many times, the election was dodgy as feck, probably slightly less dodgy than the one that was ratified in Kosovo but dodgy as feck nonetheless. Edited March 8, 2015 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 . The trouble on here is some come across as almost praising Russia over this in the way they post there hatred of America. Like who and where are they "almost praising Russia" , i suspect this assertion will be hard/impossible to prove using quotes from the board, and if my suspicion is correct then where did the impression come then? Weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Was it Mctaz that used to post inside quotes in the old days? I'm trying to mind who it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Was it Mctaz that used to post inside quotes in the old days? I'm trying to mind who it was. Yes it was. Funnily enough, I was reminded of him as well when you pointed it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 We are all McTaz... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I'm bloody not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Why don't they just send in some special forces and let all the wind out of their tyres? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.