Mor

Interesting two tidbits concerning possible sanctions\actions:

Download the series, tsk tsk tsk Anyway, I don't know who ripped who, but the first episode of the returned is certainly well done, making the returned the second past time Tv-show this year that picked my interest. p.s. Thanks @Raithe and @Hiro for providing feedback and summaries

In that particular exchange it was a person(singular), and he spoke of policies in past tense in relation to Ukraine's economic crisis. But while we know that EU put forward several reforms (to address political and economical issues in Ukraine. Deal with corruption and stimulate its crumbling economy which under performed for the last ~two decades ) as prerequisite for membership, which Ukraine didn't adopt (thus why the process was ~suspended). The on thing that we do know which had a direct adverse effect on Ukraine economy (on top of recession) was Russian involvement trying to bully Ukraine into adopting pro-russian policies and join its own trade union. Notably adjusting the gas prices and the closing of its border to Ukrainian exports on which Ukraine depended. So their generous offer came as carrot after the club. Again deflecting with apple and oranges scenarios, I have weird filling of deja vu addressing similar intellectual dishonest argument by you before(Iraq was it?) and saying that you engage in verbal masturbation. First you deflected to Iraq where a belligerent dictator who kept starting wars with his neighbors one after another(2 in span of 10 years, 8 of which he was at war) trying to annex another country, causing world instability. A dictator who possessed and used his WMDs against his neighbors and his own populace. Who surrendered and agreed to disarm of WMDs and UN weapons inspectors, and decade later he still refused to flly comply with his obligations and allow full inspection, then one after another UN resolutions leading to unfortunate expansive unpopular war. Wow with Libya, of course it was a regime change, I was against it since the beginning rejecting the misguided notions of the arab spring being a rise of democracy and the humanitarian impulse for NATO intervention to help bring said democracy and protect civilians. Nevertheless, the intervention came in the middle of a popular uprising in the arab world, which was seen as country wide out break of lawlessness, stop of civil services and war crimes. Gaddafi who previously crushed similar uprising had a loong history of documented abuses against civilians. The intervention was under the auspices of a UNSC and widely supported including by the Arab world. However, setting aside all my objections and disagreements with NATO about the way things were handled in Libya and Iraq, comparing it to Russian involvement in Crimea(and Georgia) are nothing but demagogy riding on superficial similarities. Even in decade old link I posted above(to make a point about Putin Russia) the exact same scenario/pretext that Russia used to arm wrestle the small former USSR states into compliance with its policies was outlined, explaining how Russia would perceive the Rose(Georgia) and Orange(Ukraine) revolutions as a threat and surprise surprise few year later that exactly what happened(remember the map I drew in the first thread with a nice grouping of Moldova\Georgia\Ukraine all of which Russia conveniently helped with the same pretext?), and here you shamelessly try to claim that Russia actions are anything, but unilateral revanchism and irredentism; Trying to feed us with Russian propaganda that wasn't substantiated anywhere else, asserting that Russia motivation were innocent and noble - because Russia is known for its care for humanitarian need, civil rights and what majority that disagree with Russia think (e.g. in Chechnya, in Russia in general or Syria) and when none of that fly you default to the same deflection to look they are no different then.. Bottom line after all your pseudo intellectual arguments, you simply support Russia actions (Which has nothing but a land grabs by petulant bully who wasn't happy people don't like him anymore, with no real justification international support or any attempt to help anyone but Russia to some new real estate in Ukraine) and try to put a pretty spin on this, labeling everyone else as "west" and claiming that "westerners" are all biased.

I am not the one making ridicules assertions and logical leaps, with familiar slogans from blogger sites, nor will I try to prove a negative. (and My poor English grammar is not news to anyone) But since you agree that there are a lot of factors to crime rates, please do some of that thinking you mentioned and tell me what you think about ravenshrike implied conclusion and then his "methodology" It is not particularly difficult to look up violent crime rates for the years 1995 and 2007 for both the US and Australia. You then divide the later number by the earlier number to see how much the rate has increased/decreased. and if requesting some kind of research\data from reputable source as prerequisite for any kind of discussion on the matter is anything but granted. ( After all if the conclusion he tried to imply that gun control led to rise in crime was backed by real research it would be in the headlines of every news paper... and so easy to back up )

yeah I do, because you are obviously a retard who don't get that crime rates has several contributing factors (such as socio‐economic and cultural factors, so crime rates can go up/down even though Gun ban has good/no/bad influence ) so making the conclusion you made is ignorant, moreover it predicated on the assumption the guns bans not only correlate but a deciding factor on crime rates, which something that gun lobbies has fought tooth and nail against for decades. which why we need a paper or some reputable source not a kid with google skills..

There is no even if. Either you can show me a paper that studied violent crimes stats and its conclusion says anything about ban of semi auto guns(not all guns) or your playing with stats to suite your belief (like those guys from that global warming institute). For example I have no problem with people who would claim that ban of semi-auto guns in Australia had no discernible impact on suicide and violent crime rates, because I am familiar with at least on such study(and criticism over its methodology, I am also familiar with studies that showed that it has very discernible impact ) So again do you have anything other then googling skills to back up those assertions, surely if one of you figured the truth in two minutes there would be some research or reputable source quoting one that back up the conclusion you are trying to paddle, until then this nothing but another claim on the internetz.

We are aware of Ukraine situation, which is why I have been against EU and USA intervention from the start of the Ukrainian crisis, back when Zaptor(or sarex?) has been throwing BS assertions about Ukrainian finance crisis being a result of EU policies as oppose to being helped into it by Russia armwrestling and soviet style policies and corruption which bared its way into EU at that time. But since Russia intervened in Ukraine Crimea pulling of "anschluss" land grab, after doing the same in Georgia recently the situation has certainly changed. Before there were some tensions (e.g. over Syria, Russia energy blackmail etc), but now there will be no more "reset"s for a while, with international community taking measure against Russia actions. Although the change could be better characterized as realization, because even though Obama tried to rest the situation nothing here has changed in regard to Russia actions (see this article from last Russian intervention in Ukraine) and as you can see from our Russian peer it doesn't seem they left cold war mentality, reliving its soviet "glory" days, petulant kids motivated by revanchism and nationalism with huge nuclear club. Also recent cold war themed batch:

Unless you are implying that gun control is the sole reason for increase/decrease to those rates(in which case you score for the other team) it is particularly difficult to derive anything about gun control from comparing those statistics without sounding ridiculous... (i.e. the specific part I mentioned above for which i'll need more then some blogger with googling skills as reference )

The info about 98% of junk DNA (or more correctly non coding DNA) is outdated. Also it is not news that many organism share DNA sequences after all we all made of cells underneath and no scientist thinks that because of that we are half bananas.

It called healthy skepticism, based on what I do know about research conducted concerning Australia change of legislation in 96, the precedent of Tobacco companies lobbyist "research" and the seemingly ludicrous synthesis above that I specifically pointed out, which seem like something that a retard blogger with skill in googling created (maybe to you a comparison between hard numbers in US and Australia or Sweden for that mater is meaningful, but it isn't to anyone one else, though I would love to see how you explain that conclusion I mentioned through googling stats) EDIT: Btw as for those research, there have been several studies in Australia, most focused on gun violence and suicide rates, with different result from up to 80% decrease, double the decline rates or not noticeable change. The later had been criticized for methodological flaws. It would be interesting to see on which study your uhm data is based on.

Oh really? I would love to see the study this is taken from and by study I don't mean some gun nut blog. Specifically the part that link the supposed rise in crime to gun ownership.

There are exceptions to what I stated, hence me writing 'almost never' but they are rare in modern times, and absent from most if not all major conflicts western nations have been involved in. Ideology/religion have played almost no role in almost all wars in the last half century other than to galvanize some support amongst the masses. ... It is no secret that economic conditions(and other interrelated factors) is one of the triggers for unrest and political instability, which in many cases leads to or deflected by conflicts. Which is why it has been one of the corner stones of policy makers for long time within or without( e.g. most of the developed world countries has been giving Foreign Aid to improve situation around the world ) It is also not a secret that many conflicts has an economic component to them, reality isn't a comics book we can't fix all world problems on our dime, we have too many of our own. so of course countries would be more inclined to act in Iraq which was the cause of two previous wars and major rise of oil prices leading to world wide economic instability and enrichment of backwater dictatorial s***holes which usually contribute to it, then some "insignificant" country in Africa. As for your argument about wars being primarily about resources, let step aside from global to domestic arena for the sake of the argument, you can easily observe that resources is major component of every implemented policy, so would you argue that resources are the sole or guiding reason behind our policies? Also i am still interested to see how your argument relates to the current issue, are you underlying that Russian invasion of Ukraine Crimea region had an economically driven? ( i.e. all the stuff we already mentioned New real estate, securing their black see headquarter, arm wrestling Ukraine into submission maintaining the buffer zone, possible resources in Crimea etc, btw we also mentioned things such as fear that the toppling of Yanukovych would counterwent their years of arm wrestling and put off their interest in Ukraine and their Eurasianist ambitions, or reinforcing Putin deteriorating image of strong macho leader on which rose on wining Chechnya 2 and riding the economic crisis of 1998 on energy resource revenue, an image which was flattering since his second term.) Any of that or are you like few others here who are pro war, trying to excuse Russian invasion? What about the Jews, someone have to poll the string no? sorry, but that rhetoric resembles some old school stuff: Also I always wondered why in those western fiefdoms, the slaves have far more purchasing power and enjoy better services and generally their life is ranked better in all categories then those people in Russia who enjoys soo much freedom

Nice, it covers many of the misconceptions voiced here.

^ There many such movies that focus on specific situation in life or simple human emotions, most of them never sell well but many of them cal leave you with warm feeling or a grin. Whenever I perceive something as black and white tv old, I get into these bizarre moods. For example here, I found myself reading the movie summary on IMDB in late ww2 radio broadcast about allied troop advancement excited fashion

I suspect that current that the current sanctions are the tip of the iceberg, currently they are very limited and mostly effective in scaring investors in fear of future sanctions. The real effect will come from the freeze in relationship and will effect current and future project with Russian (e.g. the new black sea pipeline which had legal issue in the EU ) it might also cause NATO to react aggressively not only by bringing Sweden into the fold but go as far as helping in Georgia. EDIT: It might not help them on individual level for example you know how real champagne is suppose to be from champagne region in France, well apparently Vodka is from anywhere but Russia ( Sweden make far better one anyway )

The talk of foreign businesses seizure is such a wrong move it is the opposite of what you want in such scenario ..

@Valsuelm, I read your latest posts and I agree with most of it, though none of it is out of the ordinary for general discussion about war, what I didn't see is you making a point in relation to the topic at hand. @Zoraptor, Again the everyone misunderstand Putin, Russia or what happens in Russia.. Also most of us don't care what Putin "sincerely believes" (no more than I care about family values and kissing babies during elections), since actions speaks louder. Also I don't know what his advisors said, what I do know that he pays a lot of money for western PR groups and that during his ~15 years of rule he has been meticulously maintaining his image, resulting in a personality cult of a sort.

Do you have a credible reference that those Neo-Nazis are on a rampage throughout Ukraine? That they are implementing "self defense" brigades that are targeting ethnic Russians? Preparing to commit genocide or ethnic cleansing? Because so far, Crimea is the problem. And Tatars fear further problems. Furthermore, if Russia really wanted to protect Russians, it would not invade and occupy Ukraine, pressing the berserk button of a nation long oppressed by Russia. Also just to reiterate this point, even up to yesterday during Putin's speech the Russian stance has been about " needing to protect the Russian speaking Ukrainians from fascists and attacks and persecution" Okay we get that, Russian speaking communities in the Crimea and Ukraine are besieged by aggressive Neo-Nazi's. Now can we get some evidance....just one or two sources outside of RT. Yes "protect" ethnic Russians in Crimea, followed by a speech that Crimea was always part of Russia.. Like I said before: As far as I am concerned anyone who can't separate the internal issue in Ukraine from Russian aggression, or worse who excuse the later with former as if Russian land grab is in any way or form intended to solve any of Ukraine issues they claim to care about is just a retard. Also agree with Bruce, I have yet to see any evidence of anything remotely notable in Crimea or Ukraine compared to other places worldwide and certainly no to the effect of Russian media fear mongering. For example compared to what happening in Russia/Caucuses to non Russian minorities Russian claims are hypocritical joke. As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

Indeed. I find it amusing that people are focusing on the far right that might cause damage (currently limited to isolated incidents), but handwave Russian aggression comparable to the totalitarian actions of the Soviet Union and Third Reich, like the Anschluss or the occupation of the Baltic states. I wonder which nation with a significant Russian ethnic population will be next. Latvia? Estonia? Will Putin finish what Stalin started and dump the Tatars somewhere else, so that his "endangered Russians" can be safe? In other news, an interesting point. And a decent summary with sources: http://www.nucleardiner.com/archive/item/ukraine-update-17-march-2014 Interesting, but I don't see this effecting anything. IMO it mostly show how Russia dealing with syria effected its standing with Turkey. Also Alaska was Russian once, no That exactly it, we are worried about rise of nationalism in many places all round the world ( including Russia ), but our worries about the specific situation in Ukraine, doesn't translate in any way or form to an excuse Russian aggression in Ukraine, violation of its agreements and just plan simple excuse for quick real estate grab.

Unless you missed a step Ukrainian is dealing with a Financial crisis, national crisis, Russia aggression etc. If you know a better way to deal with "it" then calling for early election to re establish public confidence and deal with all the issues through the established measures I would love to hear it. Because as I said before Russia screaming "it" has nothing todo with Ukraine dealing with it, and everything todo with its selfish interests. Btw, you might want to familiarize yourself with the other actors http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25910834 Right... Exactly. The same exact parliament changing tune completely after the physical power in the streets changed hands and they are guarded not by trained police but by guys with clubs from Svoboda parties. People bring guns and hammers into official meetings, Svoboda party members force people to resign by beating them up. Nothing suspicious here at all. No duress and threat of lynch justice at all by those same fascists who do these things with impunity. kid you might want to watch something other than Russian news or whatever oby like conpiracy crap you have been consuming. The parliament dealt with escalating national crisis, voting out the president who failed to deal with it and run away. Calling for early elections, it is pretty standard procedure in such circumstances. I think that Obama is a Muslim example would be far more appropriate example in this case.. Also I wish someone will make a comparison between Russian and Ukrainian far-right movements, to put things into perspective. i.e. all those movements that has been breading since Putin came to power with his soft nationalistic pitch, even if he plays whackemall as far as who get to be in charge.

So what the news on this sniper? I don't like Fox news but at least I cab say that they believe in what they say. I don't if that can be said about RT or any of the rest of Russian state media.

Just in case then. If anyone still had any illusions. I don't where you live but the issue of far right movements has always been a concern in the EU\Russia\etc. Concerning the situation here, the latest Ukrainian election have been covered, the current situation has been covered, including in the BBC faq summary I linked with indepth cover on the actors and we "discussed" ( I personally agreed with situation, when sarex(?) linked an article about it) - so no one is hiding anything. The illusion here is not their presence, but their influence. Russian media tried to delegitimize the Euromaide by changing the topic from the reforms and police which wasn't inline with their interest, by changing the focus, turning radical margins into mainstream focusing on the clashes only (which iirc when the right sector first ~appeared, because certain types are drawn to such conflict, just as goons that was employed against them) downplaying government violent dispersal, turning on the fear mongering with pictures of violent clashes, talks of fascist and they come to get you build up - work every time and work especially well for Russian ethnic who mostly consume Russian state media. Later Russia implied that the votes that were taken by the unchanged Ukrainian house of representatives as the work of those fascist and its because those fascist goverment they can cancle their previous agreements with Ukraine ... you get the picture.

Unless you refer to something new. I'll have to take an issue with the part I bolded. Ukraine has continuously tried to defuse the situation and shown utmost restraint to the escalation. So placing them in the same sentence with Russia is just buffling to me I mean even if you are one of those who still think that the highly organized/coordinated/outfied anti-Ukraine "local defense" forces were not Russian forces or taking point and outfield by Russian forces, I think that Russia reaction escalating the Ukrainian crisis with its mobilization/rhetoric and placing soldier inside of another sovereign country defacto taking over it, is enough to separate the two.

They are conceptually one and the same, anyone involved in 'public relations' is involved in 'propaganda' and vice versa, the only real difference is how the label is perceived. Go introduce yourself to Edward Bernays. I agree to an extent, which is why I said very similar concepts. However, PR is most commonly associated with companies who wish to promote a certain image and while it might put a spin on things in certain situation it usually grounded in solid basis, while Propaganda is usually negatively associated with state propaganda of ww2 times, and as not necessarily limited to the truth. So for example I have no problem to say that today Germany state or foreign affairs department is engaged in PR, but I would call Russian equivalent propaganda, to differentiate their practice i.e. its one things to give statements to the media and another to control the media and dictate what they can't say, censoring any other independent opinion that says something else. Or if you wish here Obsidian forums engaged in PR by promoting its product through updates etc, not by censoring anyone who disagree or don't like it. This is of course a pretty subjective thing and dependent on where in which nation you lived. However, if you mean in the manner that most westerners do when they consider the question: the per capita GDP... Please don't say westerners, every time it or the east/west stuff mentioned in this thread, I get a knee jerk reaction due to the demagogic nature of arguments brought here in this respect (specifically the appeal to emotion through ignorance, but also advocating immediate, violent action in times of crisis ). As for here, obviously what 'quality of life' means to various people is subjective, which is why comparison between countries are usually based on independent organization ranking. Such ranking are based on several factors e.g. education, life expectancy and GDP, but can go as far as factoring quality of infrastructure ( the later very much appeal to me because I HATE traffic jams! though admittedly its more about economic development than that )

Well now, usually when someone uses that sort of description it is because they feel they're losing an argument and are rather baffled as to why, since they cannot actually be wrong. No I am tiered of arguing ad nauseam with your logic and your apologizing for Russia actions, finding the ordeal as a pointless exercise in futility . I have nothing to add on this point to what I already said to you. So we will have to agree to disagree, and hopefully you got something from the two preceding context post. ( btw, I find it amusing that I could make a better case for some of your arguments concerning Crimea separatism, though don't feel encouraged, the bottom line is still the same ) Thank you toilet4u. Like I said before your expert opinion, based on googling scholarship, devote of context and with barely tangible correlation to the main topic in some colossal never ending argument that usually devolve into huge quote walls that are devote of meaning and only serve as for some petty trying to prove/win BS, are as always unappreciated.