Ukraine Redux

[obyknven]

http://www.batr.org/corporatocracy/112713.html

 

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have the objective of merging the American economy into and under the European Union model of supranational dictates. If this were not the path to betrayal, what would you call it? With the fallout from the nuclear option by "Democrat Dictator" Harry Reid, the filibuster will not stop ratification of treaties in the Senate. False promises of job expansion are nothing but hideous promises for the uninitiated or unintelligent. The TTIP is just another tactic to maintain and expand the Anglo –American hegemony. Only favored companies that operate under the oversight and protection of central bankers, benefit from monopolistic trade arrangements. Protective tariffs built America. Free Trade agreements are destroying the middle class. Increasing economic activity under a framework that effectively excludes the next generation of the working population only fattens the Plutocrats appetites for even more dominance. The TTIP assurance to "Promote the global competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises" is a total fraud. Ask any business executive, the commerce race is stacked in favor of the corporatist. Then pose the same question to a small business owner, who knows they seldom even get the chance to play the international trade game at all.

Russia play role of Boogeyman and force Europe sign this treaty.  Obama and Putin work togheter, they are guys from one company. All people who seriously belive in US/Russia confrontation just fools.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yes we know that some of the justification for the invasion of Iraq was false, but that has nothing to do with the  majority of statements from the UK being accurate and valid. Like this article

 

 

Something tells me that if it were 2003, you would be arguing that the UK and US government officials wouldn't be lying about the 'WMDs' in Iraq and would buy the manufactured hogwash that Saddam was the antichrist of Arabia and the greatest enemy on earth of freedom and democracy who must be 'stopped'. And yes, if you forget, at the time, there were people, myself being one, saying they were lying and going to war under completely false pretenses. How many times do you need to be lied to before you stop believing the source?

 

 

You right I did support the invasion of Iraq for the reasons given, I then changed my mind after it was clear the reasons weren't true. History will  reveal if it was still the right strategic decision to invade Iraq. But I don't think it will be due to the political situation that now exists in the region. Of course the invasion of Afghanistan was and still is perfectly justified

 

Were you really one of those that was opposed to the Iraq invasion? I don't suppose you have any proof..like an old forum discussion that you can link? I suppose even conspiracy theorists are right sometime

Edited March 24, 2014 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

Also here is the post that I refereed to above, the memory was brought about by Valsuelm comment about "Russia isn't playing the great 'central banking / convert our nations into fiefdoms based on debt slavery' game that the Europeans and the U.S".

 

Exactly what you saying exactly the same thing 2 weeks ago has to do with the part I asked you to provide a cite for, to whit...

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.

is a question I'm not sure I can be bothered asking at this point- since it's absolutely clear and explicit that numbersman is talking in the future ("will be begging the Russians") and isn't blaming the EU for the mess Ukraine is currently in. Though at this point it does rather look like someone is throwing BS assertions.

 

In any case, if anyone was blaming europe for the economic mess that Ukraine is in they would be wrong, but same with Russia. It's a self made bed.

 

You pseudo-intellectuals do seem to love lobbing **** at each other though.

Passive-aggressive armchair warriorism, if you please.

[BruceVC]

 

 

You pseudo-intellectuals do seem to love lobbing **** at each other though.

Passive-aggressive armchair warriorism, if you please.

 

 

"Passive-aggressive armchair warriorism".. I like that

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

You pseudo-intellectuals do seem to love lobbing **** at each other though.

Passive-aggressive armchair warriorism, if you please.

 

Whatever gets your rocks off. Consumption of vast amounts of alcohol or narcotics seems far more pleasurable than armchair combat though.

[Mor]

...

*sighs* it is not about who was right. If Valsuelm believes that in 2003 he had proof that there were no WMDs in Iraq or that in his expert opinion there was no justification to deal the way they did with a belligerent dictator who instigated two wars, a war criminal who has used WMDs in the past, and was in stand off with international community for over a decade, failing to fully comply what he signed on in his surrender agreement which covered WMD(I'd say burden of proof is on him); claiming that it is the same as Putin dipping into soviet cold war gamebook, doing exactly what he said in premeditated unilateral act of a bullying, with real estate grab blitz knowing all to well that his state news propaganda wont hold up in the international arena. Then let this hawk fly on the nationalistic\patriotic fumes he has been on for a while.

 

Passive-aggressive armchair warriorism, if you please.

I call it a cute attempt to mud the water with the same good ol' Look Who's Talking Routine, to deflect from the issue.

 

@KaineParker, i'll reply soon, once i have more then couple of minutes for a post.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Mor

[obyknven]

[TrashMan]

I'm saying that your claims are ridiculous, grannies holding guns and fighting? And I'm sure we had some zealots, but so did you, in every war you have zealots.

 

I'm not saying every granny was armed with a gun. But the people in RSK were - in general - armed to the teeth and very nationalistic and feverious.

 

 

 

 

But you want people to believe, that Serbs went and killed their own people to force them out of Croatia. It sure as hell ain't that either. It's obvious to anyone, that Operation Storm had everything to do with the ethnic cleansing of Serbs.

 

You weren't there so you wouldn't know, now would you?

 

The exodus of the Serbs is no Ethnic cleansing. It does not fit the definition. there was no force employed from the CA, there was no grand plan.

 

Rage as much as you want, but the world agrees with me.

 

The simple fact that you refuse to provide any link for that statement all this time shows that you lied about it or that you simply cannot find any information to corroborate it and so were lied to. Be aware that I asked for any link you could find, that includes wiki.

 

During this whole debate I provided 10 times more links than you. And the wiki link was a few pages back.

I say again - the wiki and the world view agree with me.

 

 

 

I never claimed that we jailed anyone

 

Indeed. That's because you haven't.

 

 

 

 

 

And you have been proven wrong on all of it, but you refuse to believe.

 

Despite video evidence. Despite black-on-white papers. Despite your own president confirming it.

JNA was in Croatia. Fighting. It was in Knin. It was in Vukovar. During the entire war.

JNA tanks. JNA aircraft. JNA ships. JNA soldiers. All in Croatia, long after independance was declared.

 

Any further discussion is pointless.

 

I addressed Milosevics statement. You showed no video evidence. I didn't deny Vukovar. YNA was not in Croatia after it declare independence, you showed no proof to indicate otherwise.

 

You didn't address anything, and least of all his statement. Everyone except from you and your media pretty much agrees the JNA was in Croatia (including your president). And I sure as hell won't bother to prove known and factual stuff that you can easily look into yourself.

[213374U]

Huh, I'm surprised this is still going on. Don't see the point of arguing over a largely insignificant track of land seized from an imploding state. You pseudo-intellectuals do seem to love lobbing **** at each other though.

 

Well! It's a fine day for Americentrism, don't you think? Crimea may seem insignificant to you, but in Europe any display of power by Russia is a cause for alarm. Especially eastern Europe, where Russia has a history of smacking the locals around. Understandably, people are concerned. Especially given the fact that in the past months, mainstream western news outlets have painted an extremely one-sided picture of the situation, with abundant comparisons to Nazi Germany.

 

If you still don't see the point of discussing this, well... there's always the attractive women thread.

 

 

 

Something tells me that if it were 2003, you would be arguing that the UK and US government officials wouldn't be lying about the 'WMDs' in Iraq and would buy the manufactured hogwash that Saddam was the antichrist of Arabia and the greatest enemy on earth of freedom and democracy who must be 'stopped'. And yes, if you forget, at the time, there were people, myself being one, saying they were lying and going to war under completely false pretenses. How many times do you need to be lied to before you stop believing the source?

 

No longer believing the source would imply acceptance that liars have somehow taken power, and have been doing so consistently for decades at least. And in the absence of a coup, in a democracy, this can only happen if we vote said liars into office. That's the ****ty aftertaste of democracy—all those wars, all those lies, all those crimes, they have been perpetrated in our name, with our consent. If we openly stop believing the lies, we must accept our share of the blame.

 

nobodygottimefodat.jpg

[BruceVC]

 

 

You pseudo-intellectuals do seem to love lobbing **** at each other though.

Passive-aggressive armchair warriorism, if you please.

 

Whatever gets your rocks off. Consumption of vast amounts of alcohol or narcotics seems far more pleasurable than armchair combat though.

 

 

If some of our members like 2133, Valsuelm and Zora were prepared to stop trying to paint Russia as some sort of victim in this wanton aggression and illegal annexing of Crimea this discussion would have ended ages ago. But until they are prepared to do this I have to continue trying to get them to see the truth...I feel it is my responsibility to help them

[HoonDing]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Malcador]

Thats an excellent article and summarizes exactly the situation in Crimea.  Malc Russia won't change its direction around the Crimea despite the veracity of these words. This information just highlights the obvious contradictions in Putin's reason for the annexing of Crimea

Yeah but the UK's one of the last to be highlighting justifications. Maybe they should have had Blair read the statement as well for extra points. Oh well, I guess it's good it's just words still.

[Sarex]

 

I'm saying that your claims are ridiculous, grannies holding guns and fighting? And I'm sure we had some zealots, but so did you, in every war you have zealots.

 

I'm not saying every granny was armed with a gun. But the people in RSK were - in general - armed to the teeth and very nationalistic and feverious.

 

But you want people to believe, that Serbs went and killed their own people to force them out of Croatia. It sure as hell ain't that either. It's obvious to anyone, that Operation Storm had everything to do with the ethnic cleansing of Serbs.

 

You weren't there so you wouldn't know, now would you?

 

The exodus of the Serbs is no Ethnic cleansing. It does not fit the definition. there was no force employed from the CA, there was no grand plan.

 

Rage as much as you want, but the world agrees with me.

 

The simple fact that you refuse to provide any link for that statement all this time shows that you lied about it or that you simply cannot find any information to corroborate it and so were lied to. Be aware that I asked for any link you could find, that includes wiki.

 

During this whole debate I provided 10 times more links than you. And the wiki link was a few pages back.

I say again - the wiki and the world view agree with me.

 

I never claimed that we jailed anyone

 

Indeed. That's because you haven't.

 

I addressed Milosevics statement. You showed no video evidence. I didn't deny Vukovar. YNA was not in Croatia after it declare independence, you showed no proof to indicate otherwise.

 

You didn't address anything, and least of all his statement. Everyone except from you and your media pretty much agrees the JNA was in Croatia (including your president). And I sure as hell won't bother to prove known and factual stuff that you can easily look into yourself.

 

 

-The whole world doesn't agree with you, only the loudest part of it does.

 

-Are you claiming that you were there?

 

-If you lied about those 4000 Croats being convicted what else did you lie about.

 

-If you read the response where I translated the statement from Milosevic you quoted, you can see that I addressed it. Every "proof" you provided I answered. While your only answer for mine were that they are Serbian nationalist propaganda.

 

 

Well! It's a fine day for Americentrism, don't you think? Crimea may seem insignificant to you, but in Europe any display of power by Russia is a cause for alarm. Especially eastern Europe, where Russia has a history of smacking the locals around. Understandably, people are concerned. Especially given the fact that in the past months, mainstream western news outlets have painted an extremely one-sided picture of the situation, with abundant comparisons to Nazi Germany.

 

If you still don't see the point of discussing this, well... there's always the attractive women thread.

 

Just ignore him, he is fishing for attention. He does this sort of thing all the time, he pops in a thread and goes "I can't believe you are still discussing this, you are so boring".

Edited March 24, 2014 by Sarex

[213374U]

If some of our members like 2133, Valsuelm and Zora were prepared to stop trying to paint Russia as some sort of victim in this wanton aggression and illegal annexing of Crimea

 

Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to back it up?

[TrashMan]

 

-The whole world doesn't agree with you, only the loudest part of it does.

 

-Are you claiming that you were there?

 

-If you lied about those 4000 Croats being convicted what else did you lie about.

 

-If you read the response where I translated the statement from Milosevic you quoted, you can see that I addressed it. Every "proof" you provided I answered. While your only answer for mine were that they are Serbian nationalist propaganda.

 

- Most of it. And the part that actually knows and does it's research.

 

- In Croatia during the war? Yes. In RSK? no. I was in Dalmatia at that time.

 

- 4000? I said a bit over 2000 and Ia didn't lie. If you think so, prove it. and you still haven't provided even a single piece of evidence of Serbia convicting anyone.

 

- every proof I provided you answered? No, you didn't. Not even close.Nor have you provided any proof of ethnic cleansing.

 

******

 

 

Doesn't change the fact that it was still SFRJ and that there where as much Serbian citizens in the city at the time, the army was doing it's job. There was no YNA in Croatia when it was recognized as independent. Anything before that was in the sphere of influence of YNA, because it was still SFRJ.

 

And it's even sadder (and funnier), that in your defense/denial of JNA troops in Croatia, you mention that it's OK as long as Croatia didn't declare independance. Like that changes anything. Because troops shooting people and bombing towns is OK, as long as that is part of an oppressive federation?

It's bloody OK to murder Croatian citizens to "protect" Sebian citizens because it was SFRJ?

You talk a lot about what was going on in Croatia for someone who was never there during a war, and was subjected to propaganda and media filtering. As I said, I was here. You can talk to me untill the end of days that there was no JNA in Croatia because Serbian news said that, or because uncle Radoje or whomever told you that. But I know very well what (and whom) I've seen.

 

So I repeat:

 

"In 1990, an armed insurrection was started by Croatian Serb militias, supported by the Serbian government and paramilitary groups, who seized control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia. The JNA began to intervene in favour of the rebellion, and conflict broke out in the eastern Croatian region of Slavonia in May 1991. In August, the JNA launched a full-scale attack against Croatian-held territory in eastern Slavonia, including Vukovar."

[Mor]

Well! It's a fine day for Americentrism, don't you think? Crimea may seem insignificant to you, but in Europe any display of power by Russia is a cause for alarm. Especially eastern Europe, where Russia has a history of smacking the locals around. Understandably, people are concerned. Especially given the fact that in the past months, mainstream western news outlets have painted an extremely one-sided picture of the situation, with abundant comparisons to Nazi Germany.

I can't imagine anyone writing this with plain face anything but a trollface. You guys have been making those assertion from the start, pretending as if someone is hiding the truth when it was in plain sight from the start; as if the affair was covered one sided, when Russia state media is the only one that showed completely one sided picture and was responsible to huge volume of claims that weren't substantiated anywhere else; and looking back it is Russia (and here oby and his peers) who have been pushing the Nazi/fascist angle first, worse using it in attempt to demonize and dismiss Ukrainian issues that surfaced with Euromaiden and not as relevant history lesson to analyse Putins Russia actions. Edited March 24, 2014 by Mor

[BruceVC]

 

If some of our members like 2133, Valsuelm and Zora were prepared to stop trying to paint Russia as some sort of victim in this wanton aggression and illegal annexing of Crimea

 

Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to back it up?

 

Of course I do, obviously. Please go back and read both threads about Ukraine, you will find numerous links people posted that support what I said.

[Malcador]

Most of it has been that the West's reaction is hypocritical or that the new folks in Ukraine aren't all that great, not that Russia is a victim or anything, no ?

[Sarex]

- Most of it. And the part that actually knows and does it's research.

 

- In Croatia during the war? Yes. In RSK? no. I was in Dalmatia at that time.

 

- 4000? I said a bit over 2000 and Ia didn't lie. If you think so, prove it. and you still haven't provided even a single piece of evidence of Serbia convicting anyone.

 

- every proof I provided you answered? No, you didn't. Not even close.Nor have you provided any proof of ethnic cleansing.

 

******

 

-Maybe half of it.

 

-They don't talk about it like you have seen it.

 

-Yeah you said 2400, might as well said 4000. I can't find anything on those convicted Croats and you won't show any proof. So yes you are lying. I never claimed we convicted anyone, while you still claim 2400 Croats were convicted.

 

-200 000 thousand Serbs exiled over 1000 dead, all during operation storm.

 

 

And it's even sadder (and funnier), that in your defense/denial of JNA troops in Croatia, you mention that it's OK as long as Croatia didn't declare independance. Like that changes anything. Because troops shooting people and bombing towns is OK, as long as that is part of an oppressive federation?

It's bloody OK to murder Croatian citizens to "protect" Sebian citizens because it was SFRJ?

You talk a lot about what was going on in Croatia for someone who was never there during a war, and was subjected to propaganda and media filtering. As I said, I was here. You can talk to me untill the end of days that there was no JNA in Croatia because Serbian news said that, or because uncle Radoje or whomever told you that. But I know very well what (and whom) I've seen.

 

So I repeat:

 

"In 1990, an armed insurrection was started by Croatian Serb militias, supported by the Serbian government and paramilitary groups, who seized control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia. The JNA began to intervene in favour of the rebellion, and conflict broke out in the eastern Croatian region of Slavonia in May 1991. In August, the JNA launched a full-scale attack against Croatian-held territory in eastern Slavonia, including Vukovar."

 

You are confusing something. During that time the country was SFRY and YNA was doing was doing it's job of keeping stability in it's own country. If civilians start arming them self and harming others then of course the army is going to come and keep peace. You are making this out to seem as YNA was killing unarmed civilians, when they were in fact fighting the first Croatian and Muslim paramilitary troops.

 

You are also confusing something else, I did not get my information from the media. I got my information from the people who fought in the war and the people who were exiled from their homes. So try and dismiss what I say all you want, it's not me who is making up ridiculous stories.

[213374U]

Of course I do, obviously. Please go back and read both threads about Ukraine, you will find numerous links people posted that support what I said.

 

No, if anyone has shown a reading deficit throughout the close to sixty pages that this has gone on for, it's you—as evidenced by this post. Where exactly have I (can't/don't want to speak for others) characterized Russia or Putin as "victims"?

 

And dude, stop with the "I have evidence, but it's up to you to dig it up" schtick. It was funny the first time, perhaps, but that's not how conversations work. No, really.

[Sarex]

And dude, stop with the "I have evidence, but it's up to you to dig it up" schtick. It was funny the first time, perhaps, but that's not how conversations work. No, really.

 

This can be said to many people in this thread.

[Rostere]

Russia is a country... the EU isn't.

I bet most EU-members (if not all) have economies way smaller than Russia...

 

So then the EU can be represented by 17 Mediterranean monk seals. (Hint: It doesn't make any difference for the argument)

 

It is true however that the EU is composed of different countries which depend on Russian trade in different ways. Although my original point is roughly true, this does make things a bit more complicated.

 

Using this as a starting point, you can identify the total value of trade, and divide it with the nation in question's GDP. That makes a rough ordering of how much complete sanctions would impact any nation trading with Russia. This suggests Finland would be hit very hard. But certainly it would also be devastating to some particular companies.

 

In any case Russia would be hit the hardest. To put this into perspective: Russia is more dependent on oil- and gas-related exports than the UAE and slightly less dependent than Saudi Arabia. Putin would not be able to afford any of his military purchases if the trade stopped. As somebody wrote before, Russia is a "gas station"-country just like Venezuela. Shut the gas down, and there is no competitive economy underneath (unlike some of the oil states on the Arabian peninsula, which rank pretty high in competitiveness).

 

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 )

 

NATO has been open to Swedish entry since about the end of the Cold War. Even before that though, there have been significant ties and (secret) military cooperation. I don't think that Sweden will enter NATO any time soon, though. It's honestly more likely that Finland joins NATO. What is likely though is a significant military rearmament in Eastern and Northern Europe. Additionally, I think we will see Central Asian nations drifting further away from Russia and closer to China and Turkey.

 

 

Thats an excellent article and summarizes exactly the situation in Crimea.  Malc Russia won't change its direction around the Crimea despite the veracity of these words. This information just highlights the obvious contradictions in Putin's reason for the annexing of Crimea

Yeah but the UK's one of the last to be highlighting justifications. Maybe they should have had Blair read the statement as well for extra points. Oh well, I guess it's good it's just words still.

 

LOL, Blair.

[Zoraptor]

Most of it has been that the West's reaction is hypocritical or that the new folks in Ukraine aren't all that great, not that Russia is a victim or anything, no ?

Yep. Don't think I've seen anyone say that Russia is the victim, just that (1) they have reasons for doing what they have done and (2) pretty much everyone behaves the same way with the main difference being the way spin is applied depending on whether it's us or them doing it.

 

To be scrupulously fair elements of (1) can sound like saying they are the victim if that is the message you want to hear instead of an explanation of why the Russians think the way they do.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Yes we know that some of the justification for the invasion of Iraq was false, but that has nothing to do with the  majority of statements from the UK being accurate and valid. Like this article

 

 

Something tells me that if it were 2003, you would be arguing that the UK and US government officials wouldn't be lying about the 'WMDs' in Iraq and would buy the manufactured hogwash that Saddam was the antichrist of Arabia and the greatest enemy on earth of freedom and democracy who must be 'stopped'. And yes, if you forget, at the time, there were people, myself being one, saying they were lying and going to war under completely false pretenses. How many times do you need to be lied to before you stop believing the source?

 

 

You right I did support the invasion of Iraq for the reasons given, I then changed my mind after it was clear the reasons weren't true. History will  reveal if it was still the right strategic decision to invade Iraq. But I don't think it will be due to the political situation that now exists in the region. Of course the invasion of Afghanistan was and still is perfectly justified

 

Were you really one of those that was opposed to the Iraq invasion? I don't suppose you have any proof..like an old forum discussion that you can link? I suppose even conspiracy theorists are right sometime

 

 

Yes, I did oppose the Iraq invasion in 2003, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan, as both were done under false pretenses and a pile of lies. The same is true for Libya later on. I'm not a big fan of imperialism, especially when it's done in the name of the people of the nation I live in.

 

As for proof. No, not really. You'll have to take me at my word, and it's not as if I have anything to gain by lying, not to mention I abhor lies. The forums I was active in back then are either completely gone at this point or are purged regularly of older messages (ie: the only forum I'm still active on at all that I frequented back then purges all messages older than 90 days from the public domain). Though I don't recall discussing the politics of the US invasion of Iraq much if at all on the internet anyways, I do recall discussing it at length with people face to face. I made my prediction that the US would invade Iraq around 11am on 9/11/01, within an hour or so of my roommate informing me of what was going on that day, I said something along the lines of 'they're going to use this as an excuse to go into Iraq'. The revelation in mainstream media that the US and UK lied about 'WMDs' in Iraq was somewhat of a surprise as those kinds of coverups do not usually get coverage in such places (there was enough anti-war sentiment and alternative media sources making noise however to make it happen), and allowed me to wake a few folks I had been discussing the events with at the time.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

Well! It's a fine day for Americentrism, don't you think? Crimea may seem insignificant to you, but in Europe any display of power by Russia is a cause for alarm. Especially eastern Europe, where Russia has a history of smacking the locals around. Understandably, people are concerned. Especially given the fact that in the past months, mainstream western news outlets have painted an extremely one-sided picture of the situation, with abundant comparisons to Nazi Germany.

I can't imagine anyone writing this with plain face anything but a trollface. You guys have been making those assertion from the start, pretending as if someone is hiding the truth when it was in plain sight from the start; as if the affair was covered one sided, when Russia state media is the only one that showed completely one sided picture and was responsible to huge volume of claims that weren't substantiated anywhere else; and looking back it is Russia (and here oby and his peers) who have been pushing the Nazi/fascist angle first, worse using it in attempt to demonize and dismiss Ukrainian issues that surfaced with Euromaiden and not as relevant history lesson to analyse Putins Russia actions.

 

 

What you're writing has absolutely nothing to do with what 213374U wrote. If you think he was trolling I'm not sure you understand what trolling is, and you certainly misunderstand what he was getting at.