Ukraine crisis

[Rue]

1-What I'm suggesting is that the US/Nato was in the Ukraine causing the unrest for the express reason of encroaching further on Russia's borders.

2-And so consequently, the people of the Crimea were allowed to express their free choice through a referendum. There was obviously never a need for them to even do that unless there was the threat of US/Nato aggression. It presented a problem for Russia for that reason alone.

3-I completely disagree with your idea that Saddam was the complete scum of the earth. ..Saddam had succeeded in making his country the most prosperous and modern country of the ME Arab countries...All religious persuasions were tolerated if they acted peacefully. Women were acknowledged as equals and worked alongside of men in pre-US-war Iraq.

4-On gassing people. Even if you are unable to rise above the demonization of some country's leaders because of their use or supposed use of gas, I can. I understand fully that the term WMD was only coined by the US for purposes of demonizing leaders in countries that didn't have access to the real WMD's.

5-Now we're going to have to deal with reality and hopefully you won't start to accuse me of supporting the killing of people with WMD's. The only party that stands guilty of doing that in this 21st. century is the US.

Monty in response to the above:

In regards to 1; that is Putin's claim-he felt NATO was going to place troops in the Ukraine-NATO and the EEC and the Ukraine all deny that;

In regards to 2; yes you trot out Putin's version of why he invaded Crimea-the fact is he used the pretext of saving Russian Crimeans as the excuse for invading-the fact is he sent in special forces dressed as civilians who caused riots and were caught red handed doing so and then sent in the regular armt-you can respin it all you want he invaded a sovereign nation and he did it for the reasons you unintentionally suggested and that was to recapture a naval port he found of strategic necessity for the Russian navy, he could not possibly allow NATO to control his only Black Sea port-it would have crippled his Navy-this had nothing to do with saving Crimean Russians and everything to do with a counter-offensive military move he felt was in response to NATO threatening basic Russian military needs-Joe Biden's son and John Kerry's stepson are ont he board of directors of the Ukraine's largest oil company, Putin felt he was losing control of the Ukraine and American oil interests-Putin felt he had invested 15 billion in the Ukraine to secure their coming back into the Russian economic sphere and felt they are ungrateful sob's for biting his hand-he thought he had bought them off-however let's use your anology you seem to talk of democracy in action in Crimea and the Russian Crimeans exercising their free will-funny you do not apply that same belief to the fact that the majority of Ukrainians denounced the Ukrainian government that was controlled by Putin as a corupt puppet stooge of Putin;

In regards to 3; you want to revise history and what Sadaam was? Why? First off your claim he made Iraq the most prosperous country in the Middle East is fiction-The Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are and always were simply because of world oil prices-after that the only successful economy in the Middle Easy is in fact Israel-no other country was doing well and why you want to pretend Iraq was is anyone's guess-even with the oil exports the majority fo Iraqis lived in third world conditions with food shortages-go ask the Iraqi people themselves-they did not have it easy-plus the lengthy war with Iran devestated their economy-it killled off most of its young men, the same ones families depended on to feed themselves and it created wide spread food and material goods shortages-as for Hussein what Hussein are you talking about. The actual Sadaam Huseein orchestrated a genocide of innocent Kurds with toxic chemicals not once but several times. It also seems probable from reports on the ground he engaged in gas war against Iran.

His hand picked thugs from his own village and his revolutionary guard, went from town to town kiling thousands not just thousands of Shiites and Kurds but his own Sunnis from other sects than his own? The manner in which he ruled was by indiscriminate terror. He would nightly order the random killing of thousands in villages just to keep people frightened of him and think twice about staging an overthrow.

Where were you when this was happening? He was worse than scum. He and his sons would drive around in limousines on the streets of Baghdad and randomly take young women off the streets, rape them then dump them, some mutilated and half dead, some dead, some simply raped and traumatized.

How could you not know this? Why not read up about him before you defend this man as a good leader. Your revisionism sounds like what people today do with Hilter and Stalin? How is it you can bad mouth the US but praise Hussein? Talk about a double standard when it comes to human rights.

4-Your comments in 4 make no sense. The fact he engaged in genocide and used gas warfare is one issue. The gas and hidden has cannisters are a fact. No one not even Hussein denied he used them. In regards to other WMD's, yes the US appears to have lied at the UN and set up Colin Powell to do the false flag lying which is why Powell would then resign.

However the fact that the US probably invaded Iraq for many reasons other than what they said is no surprise. Most people are not stupid. They knew George William Jr. was told by Papa George Homer Sr. to finish the Gulf war. We all know that. We also know Chaney and Halburton used the Iraq invasion as an opportunity to procure trillions in contracts for Haliburton, yes. That does not alter the fact one iota that Hussein used gas, engaged in brutal genocide and human rights violations. One does not negate the other. Hussein was no victim. He started off as a CIA puppet. He came to power promising to be a CIA stooge and became a rogue agent and that is why he was taken out. The same reason Ghaddafi was, and so many others. You live as a stooge and turn on your handler, your handler takes you out. That is how it works. What you think Russia did not have Middle East stooges? How do you think the former Colonel Assad and his son today in Syria got to power? Nasser went from CIA stooge to KGB stooge. China, Russia, the US, before them Britain and France have had their stooges in the Middle East. Iraq was created as a stooge monarchy for the Brirtish. They took a Kurd state, a Sunni State and a Shiite state, all 3 inextricably opposed to being in the same state, and jammed them all into one to assure they could divide and conquer. The British deliberately created a conflict between Palestinians and Jews to do the same and set up a Palestinian state in Jordan. Why do you make it seem the US is the only one who has done this? China turned Iran and Sudan into stooge puppet states.

5-Your comments are dead wrong. Russia and China have accused many states of having WMD's including India, Israel, the US, Britain, France and South Africa but never Brazil or Pakistan or themselves.

WMD's? I agree they are a meaningless accusation. First off Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Israel have chemical weapons which are far more deadly than any nuclear weapon. Secondly, Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China, not the US sold the chemicals to Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey. Israel developed its own.

Any idiot can engage in terrorism with either a home made dirty radioactive bomb or germ warfare.

However, today's world politics is faced with complex agendas from many foreign governments representing their powerful internal economic interests.

The entire world is an arena of double speak and hidden agendas as financial interests compete with one another.

Governments have become the servants of these economic interests. We all know for example how powerful the oil syndicates are in dictating world oil prices and influencing nations to conform to their interests.

The West, Russia, China and India chose to become addicted to oil. Now they all play the game of addicted users fighting each other for their oil fix.

[eyeball]

I opposed the war in Iraq, but after participating in a couple protests I stopped, as I found that while most people there opposed to war in general, a whole lot of others were simply on the other side.

I was branded as being anti-western and 'with' the terrorists for the crime of musing about root-causes following 9/11 never mind long before Iraq. As for invading Afghanistan I was always of the opinion that 9/11 was a matter for police to handle not soldiers.

It should be no surprise I'm of the opinion that the invaders of Iraq should all be in prison for both war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Edited May 21, 2014 by eyeball

[monty16]

Rue, #1, of course they deny it. And you obviously believe the US/Nato. I don't.

#2 Putin didn't invade the Crimea. The referendum was held and it was bloodless. The people made their choice. Yes, of course Russia (stop using the word Putin, it's only an attempt to demonize another leader of another victim country) had to keep the Ukraine and the US/Nato understood that very well. The US/Nato were supporting a completely untenable position for Russia. It differs from the US position on nuclear weapons in Cuba only inasmuch as Crimea was established as a Russian naval base while Cuba was not. Widen your horizons and you will be able to widen your perspective to understand something other than US propaganda.

#3 I make no claims about Saddam that aren't completely true. If you don't understand that Iraq had become a modern prosperous nation with freedom of religious choice and equal rights for women then find an encyclopedia that dates back before US bombing of Iraq. That will be the only surviving sourse of the truth. And don't make a fool of yourself comparing Saudi or any of the other evil and corrupt monarchies. It's simply a non-starter for informed people who know better.

#4 Saddam used gas warfare against Iran and vice versa. It's quite likely the gas was supplied by their US allies. Saddam most likely didn't use gas at Halabja. Read up on Stephen Pelletiere's analysis of that and then bet back to me on it. You can make your choice on what to believe but be aware of the pitfalls of taking either a pro or con position on that issue. Besies getting the Bush's middle names wrong you are getting everything else wrong. Bush Sr. didn't tell Bush jr. to invade Iraq. However, at least you are able to connect the two wars against Iraq and that's all I'm interested in getting out of you for now. And aside from your lengthy spiel on WMD's, you have also admitted that the term is a sham intended to demonize weapons used by small entities who are incapable of employing the use of real WMD's.

#5. Russia and China making accusations doesn't excuse the US of making the false accusations. But in any case your objections are beside the point because of your admission of guilt already. The entire world isn't involved in double speak. Where did you get that idea? Just because you admit that the US is involved doesn't mean you can defend your country's actions by trying to include the rest of the world. At least not with me you can't and get away with it.

[Big Guy]

I was branded as being anti-western and 'with' the terrorists for the crime of musing about root-causes following 9/11 never mind long before Iraq. As for invading Afghanistan I was always of the opinion that 9/11 was a matter for police to handle not soldiers.

It should be no surprise I'm of the opinion that the invaders of Iraq should all be in prison for both war crimes and crimes against humanity.

To allow others to place you into some compartment that they have created is out of your control. Those who disagree with you and cannot dispute the facts of your argument will try to "brand" you in an attempt to put you into some artificial "ideology" that they have created. It is far easier to attack a "group" as defined by the attacker than actually have to respond to the merits, or lack of such, of a position.

The mere fact that those who would try to use those diversionary tactics to try to undermine your position gives credibility to the strength of your position.

Congratulations.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Big Guy

[monty16]

Latest devolopments, at least on the CBC which is usually way above the US media on being correct, is that the Ukraine conflict is now a dead issue. They state that there is really no issue for the US/Nato to further pursue the fact that the Crimea is Russia's and no position that would dispute that can be credible.

On the rest of the Ukraine, the CBC has suggested that it's settled issue for Russia, the Ukraine, and the US/Nato. Thatmeans that all sides are going to go away happy. However, they don't hesitate to say that they see it as a victory for the US/Nato. One has to wonder what constitutes a 'victory'? I think it's the suggestion that Russia was attempting to take the Ukraine into it's fold but to actually suggest that would be too embarrassing a stretch for the CBC.

In my humble opinion the victory will be seen as the US/Nato being successful in stopping Russia's attempt to take the Ukraine. But to state that at this late date would be to sound much too ridiculous to be in harmony with the real facts.

If the US/Nato could claim any victory it would be in demonizing Russia to the rest of the world. But in fact, it's not worked that way and Russia has reacted by bringing about huge punishments on those that were the aggressors all along. Russia has just recently awarded a huge contract to China over supply of it's oil resources.

The US/Nato has only hastened the inevitable process of choosing sides in the new cold war. The US can't be optimistic over the possible outcomes of that! It's not a time to dick around with China and it's not Russia or China that started the sabre rattling first!

[monty16]

The crisis in the Ukraine will be used as a political point and start up a new kind of cold war between east and west.

But at least Putin is making it very clear that's not what Russia wants. However, this is about taking firm and positive steps to protect Russia's economic position:

http://rt.com/news/161104-sanction-eu-russia-china/

And notice that Russia continues to promise that it's commitments to Europe will continue to be honoured. Now it's up to Europe but developments have shown recently that Europe is not going to continue to go against it's best interests and be blackmailed by the US/Nato's ambitions.

The US/Nato appear to have bitten off more than they can chew, now that China is in the game and is about to eclipse the US economy. Cold war? Who the hell cares?

[Argus]

Conveniently you ignore the fact that I was called a "useful idiot", "anti western", and "putin apologist" for simply pointing out that the media in the west has a vested interest in towing the governments line. Even though I took no position at all on Russias actions.

Your position is and has always been blatantly dishonest. What you are doing is attempting to equate a free western press, which, for all its many flaws, is as honest and active, overall, in finding and exposing governmental crimes and incompetence, and the overall truth, as it can be given the economics of the medium, with Russian propaganda that is no different than it was during Stalin's time.

That position is laughable and appallingly ignorant, and the only reason for raising it is to act as a counter to those criticizing Putin, in order to defend Putin, in other words.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Challenge time. Quote one post in this thread that shows a poster was apologetic for what Russia and Putin are currently doing. Can't do it can you?

Just about any post from monty16 or iolo will do. Though I believe tinydancer and dre are also apologists.

Eyeball, bleeding heart and ghosthacked are here because some non-western government is being criticized. Any time there's a topic critical of a non-western government they will jump in to scream about how the West is corrupt and evil and just as bad and how the West eats babies for lunch, etc. It as predictable as rain in April.

And of course, this is most defniitely acting as apologists, though they will claim that isn't their intent. Nevertheless, that's what the affect is.

"Never mind about what those men with knives are doing to that woman! Look! Look there! On the other side of the street! See! That man is littering! Littering! Oh, the humanity!"

[Argus]

I believe that when poster A comments on poster B - and not on the issue being discussed, then whoever bothers to follow the thread learns a lot more about poster A then about poster B.

Of course, when Poster B insist on repeatedly quoting a Russian propaganda channel as if it was neutral news and ignores all efforts to school him that reveals a lot of about Poster B too.

[-TSS-]

The flimsy excuse for the present troubles is that a democratically elected president has been overthrown.

That just leaves one question: How can an incompetent president got rid of in the middle of the term if it becomes obvious that the person is very very detrimental to the nation?

[Argus]

Who here is Pro-Putin? Let's call this 'Challenge #2'.

monty16 and iolo

[Big Guy]

So the election progresses in an attempt to find out what the majority of those in Ukraine want for their future.

There is no vote in the Crimea so I assume that Crimea is no longer considered as part of Ukraine. There is no voting taking place in the areas currently being controlled by separatists. With about 20% of the "old" Ukraine no longer being involved in the decision making in electing the "new" president it is going to create a very difficult situation for the eventual winner. He/she will have to find some way to allow the Russian speaking minority in the East to have some sense of power and decision making of what is going to happen to their oblasts.

It may eventually lead to another referendum where those oblasts choose to be semi-autonomous from both Russia and Kiev and serve as a buffer between Russia and Kiev. The next question will be one of money and economy. These Eastern oblasts are the industrial base of Ukraine and the "new" Ukraine will be basically bankrupt. How it can survive may depend how much the Russians want to support a political buffer between themselves and Kiev - and how far Kiev wants to go towards the EU and the West.

Oh - and how much the EU is ready to spend to keep what is left of Ukraine in their sphere.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Big Guy

[monty16]

The comforting thing about it is that the south and the east are going to provide a buffer zone against further Nato encroachment on Russia. That wasn't in the US/Nato plan at all.

And unfortunately the US/Nato is not going to let it get back to a peaceful situation as the south and east is where all the wealth is in the Ukraine.

The US has plans to send nat. gas to the Ukraine at only 1.6 times the cost that Russia was supplying it. If Russia breaks with it's commitment to Europe and continues to increase it's China market, the AS gas will get there about the time the Russian's get the infrastructure up to supply China!

Boy, they really showed Putin a thing or two didn't they! LOL

[GostHacked]

Just about any post from monty16 or iolo will do. Though I believe tinydancer and dre are also apologists.

But yet cannot provide any quotes to back your bull up.

[monty16]

But yet cannot provide any quotes to back your bull up.

I provide lots of evidence and quotes but you won't ever accept them because they're not the US propagandists' pablum they spoonfeed to Americans.

But keep it up, the chickens are going to come home to roost sooner rather than later.

[GostHacked]

I provide lots of evidence and quotes but you won't ever accept them because they're not the US propagandists' pablum they spoonfeed to Americans.

But keep it up, the chickens are going to come home to roost sooner rather than later.

Whatever this was had nothing to do with my reply to Argus.

[monty16]

Whatever this was had nothing to do with my reply to Argus.

It pertains exactly to what you said to argus. Lots of quotes are provided but you don't want to accept anything other than what comes from your propagandists' sources.

[GostHacked]

It pertains exactly to what you said to argus. Lots of quotes are provided but you don't want to accept anything other than what comes from your propagandists' sources.

Read it again. I was not talking about your links. I was tasking Argus with citing some quotes of posters that are 'Putin Apologists'. The legitimacy of your links was not part of my question to Argus.

But if you are a Putin apologist, then that destroys my whole theory. And if that is the case, carry on.

[monty16]

Read it again. I was not talking about your links. I was tasking Argus with citing some quotes of posters that are 'Putin Apologists'. The legitimacy of your links was not part of my question to Argus.

But if you are a Putin apologist, then that destroys my whole theory. And if that is the case, carry on.

I am not a Putin apologist and to suggest that is a personal attack against me. Stop it now.

I side with Putin because I believe he is on the side of right and the US/Nato is on the side of wrong and is only interested in Nato expansion into the Ukraine in the near future.

Try to remember that this is 'not' about me.

[GostHacked]

I am not a Putin apologist and to suggest that is a personal attack against me. Stop it now.

I did not make a personal attack on you with my question to Argus. But this seems to confirm my suspicion about your reading comprehension level.

I side with Putin because I believe he is on the side of right and the US/Nato is on the side of wrong and is only interested in Nato expansion into the Ukraine in the near future.

The duality is strong in this one.

Try to remember that this is 'not' about me.

Of course this is not about you. It never was, not sure why you are trying hard to make it about you.

[monty16]

I did not make a personal attack on you with my question to Argus. But this seems to confirm my suspicion about your reading comprehension level.

The duality is strong in this one.

Of course this is not about you. It never was, not sure why you are trying hard to make it about you.

When you refer to me using derogatory terms or what I consider derogatory terms then you are trying to make it about me. Stop it or I'll report you for it. You have been warned!

[GostHacked]

When you refer to me using derogatory terms or what I consider derogatory terms then you are trying to make it about me. Stop it or I'll report you for it. You have been warned!

What I am about to say here is the last of this, then we can get back on topic.

You can't read. Report it, and then put me on ignore. Or should I report myself for you?

Care to get back on topic? Where have I seen this kind of tactic before. Hmmmmmmmm.

[ASIP]

There is no vote in the Crimea so I assume that Crimea is no longer considered as part of Ukraine.

You are wrong. Is it really difficult to find facts?

There is no voting taking place in the areas currently being controlled by separatists.

The separatist and Russian mercenaries do not control entire area of the two affected oblasts. Despite their (and Russia's) best efforts, 15% of voters there did vote (preliminary data). Thus, people from all 24 oblasts plus Crimea have voted.

[Big Guy]

Interesting. Do you really believe that Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine. If so then considered by whom?

"Thus, people from all 24 oblasts plus Crimea have voted." That is also an interesting position. It may satisfy a position that you would like to see but to say that there was a vote in Crimea when there were no ballots, no people voting and no results does stretch the credibility of the statement. I have no doubt that those supporting Kiev would like that to be the case but basic logic undermines that statement.

I really do not understand how somebody could make that statement with a straight face. Maybe I misread the statement. Perhaps you were being sarcastic?

[monty16]

Interesting. Do you really believe that Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine. If so then considered by whom?

"Thus, people from all 24 oblasts plus Crimea have voted." That is also an interesting position. It may satisfy a position that you would like to see but to say that there was a vote in Crimea when there were no ballots, no people voting and no results does stretch the credibility of the statement. I have no doubt that those supporting Kiev would like that to be the case but basic logic undermines that statement.

I really do not understand how somebody could make that statement with a straight face. Maybe I misread the statement. Perhaps you were being sarcastic?

It's the illusion that is going to be maintained by the US/Nato supporters. Which leads directly to the suspicion that they are going to consider that the Crimea, and the pro-Russian oblasts have chosen along with the rest of the Ukraine to side with the US/Nato. I'm going to continue to predict that there will be no cessation in the US/Nato attempts to encroach further on Russia's borders. Even though it's pretty obvious that for the US/Nato to take the Crimea back it would call for war against Russia.

That's not practical and so the stage needs to be set for the US/Nato outcome to succeed. It's anybody guess on how they will go about trying to do that. It's only certain that they will not stop trying.