Ukraine crisis

[Shady]

First off, it's not a 'zealous leftist' thing. It's a context thing. I don't see anyone defending Russia's actions. Ukraine needs to be left on their own to figure this out for themselves. But this crisis is not their doing, and the results won't be their doing either.How did Ukraine become destabilized? Someone knew that Russia would not attack during the Olympic games. What a PR stunt that would have become. So it turned out to be a great chance to really stir things up.We also have some proof that American politicians had some involvement in the destabilization.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

I see that you're even using Moscow approved propaganda now.

[eyeball]

Remember that warm feeling you got when Bush looked deep into Putin's eye's and saw an honest straightforward man?

I recall how how often people (usually on the left) have been called (usually by the right) dictators and commies for suggesting the west refuse to strengthen economic trade and ties with dictators and commies. What's with that anyway?

Edited March 1, 2014 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

Exactly. His criticism of the west, and complete silence, apathy, and understanding of Putin's use of force is beyond hypocrisy.

Right. So let's talk about your hypocrisy? What about the mess the USA left Iraq in? No one is apologizing or supporting the actions of the Russians here. NOT ONE person here is supporting that. However, we need to put it into context of the last decade and a half of what many other countries have carried out abroad. No one seems to care there either. So can we take your silence on those matters as acceptance of those actions? Of course not.

Is anyone else stooping that low as to say GTFO of my country?

As somehow equating tyrannical dictators like Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi, the Taliban, with Ukrainian uprising against Moscow puppets is the samething. I also agree, I wish these people would pack up and move to these places of which they so admire. It's pretty disgusting.

No one is making the comparisons regarding the dictatorships, just the USA's actions towards those countries under the guise of combating terrorism. Which only destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan. Which was a message to Iran and by proxy a message to Russia.

[GostHacked]

I see that you're even using Moscow approved propaganda now.

Please tell me the difference between Public Relations and Propaganda.

[-TSS-]

If Ukraine is partioned as a result of Russian bullying-tactics it would set a dangerous precedent as there are national minorities in almost every country especially in those which have been born of collapsed empires.

If Ukraine is partioned because there is a large Russian population what next? The Baltic states?

[eyeball]

Quebec...Vancouver Island...the list of disaffected people and regions around the planet is almost as big as the list of peoples and regions.

[Rue]

I am with shady, argus and tss on their comments.

.

.

[-TSS-]

Yet again another time I'm happy that Finland was not chosen into the UN security council even though our lunatic politicians worked hard trying to get us there.

[Argus]

First off, it's not a 'zealous leftist' thing. It's a context thing. I don't see anyone defending Russia's actions. Ukraine needs to be left on their own to figure this out for themselves. But this crisis is not their doing, and the results won't be their doing either.

How did Ukraine become destabilized? Someone knew that Russia would not attack during the Olympic games. What a PR stunt that would have become. So it turned out to be a great chance to really stir things up.

We also have some proof that American politicians had some involvement in the destabilization.

Actually we have ZERO proof of any such thing. NONE. ZIP. NADA. What we have is a conversation taped by Russian intelligence between two American diplomats long after the turmoil in Ukraine started, who were talking about it just like every other diplomat from every other country there was talking about it. You have simply interpreted it as "proof" of US involvement because you hate Americans. As for what started it, I don't think anyone other than a fool can blame them because Ukraine's corrupt Russian puppet president decided to back away from the integration with Europe Ukraine has been negotiating for so long in favor of becoming a Russian puppet state. It wasn't the US that made that decision it was Putin, and all the upheaval stems from that.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Remember that warm feeling you got when Bush looked deep into Putin's eye's and saw an honest straightforward man?

I recall how how often people (usually on the left) have been called (usually by the right) dictators and commies for suggesting the west refuse to strengthen economic trade and ties with dictators and commies. What's with that anyway?

Really? Could you cite a few cases? I remember Harper being called quite a few names for trying to keep our distance from China, and virtually all those calling him names were Liberals and NDP types. I don't recall anyone on the left called a "dictator and a commie" for not wanting to strengthen ties with dictatorships but I'm sure you have a lot of examples that don't date back to the cold war.

[Argus]

Right. So let's talk about your hypocrisy? What about the mess the USA left Iraq in?

Iraq only had two choices for its future: perpetual vicious dictatorship, or the turmoil of trying to figure out how different ethnic groups can get along. There never was a third choice. Do you think the first choice would have been better?

No one is making the comparisons regarding the dictatorships, just the USA's actions towards those countries under the guise of combating terrorism. Which only destabilized both Iraq and Afghanistan. Which was a message to Iran and by proxy a message to Russia.

Afghanistan was another bloody regime which harbored Osama bin Laden and some ten thousand men reporting to him. After 9/11 it was inevitable it was going to be attacked. But you seem to once more be suggesting that a cruel, vicious, bloody regime in perpetuity is better than the turmoil of overthrowing it.

[Shady]

If only America had it to do over again. Oh well.

[Shady]

Yep, the flexibility of Gumby.

[Argus]

If only America had it to do over again. Oh well.

Romney was a weakling, too. Mccain is the only Republican I can think of who has any balls.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Argus

[GostHacked]

Iraq only had two choices for its future: perpetual vicious dictatorship, or the turmoil of trying to figure out how different ethnic groups can get along. There never was a third choice. Do you think the first choice would have been better?

Actually Iraq had no choice. The change should have come from within, not from without. The same with Ukraine, both the USA and Russia need to keep their noses out of it and let them figure it out for themselves. With each side intervening, they are responsible for what will happen next. You can look at Syria as an example of how Ukraine will look like in another year or so if either Russia or the USA get involved.

Afghanistan was another bloody regime which harbored Osama bin Laden and some ten thousand men reporting to him. After 9/11 it was inevitable it was going to be attacked. But you seem to once more be suggesting that a cruel, vicious, bloody regime in perpetuity is better than the turmoil of overthrowing it.

But please do not ignore the fact that the USA helped Osama and the Muhajedeen to fight off the Russians. IN a way the USA created their own mess with regards to Al-Queda and Afghanistan.

And the turmoil that has ramped up since the invasions. Weekly car bombings in Iraq kill on average 50 people.

[Shady]

Actually Iraq had no choice. The change should have come from within, not from without. The same with Ukraine, both the USA and Russia need to keep their noses out of it and let them figure it out for themselves. With each side intervening, they are responsible for what will happen next. You can look at Syria as an example of how Ukraine will look like in another year or so if either Russia or the USA get involved.But please do not ignore the fact that the USA helped Osama and the Muhajedeen to fight off the Russians. IN a way the USA created their own mess with regards to Al-Queda and Afghanistan.And the turmoil that has ramped up since the invasions. Weekly car bombings in Iraq kill on average 50 people.

That's complete nonsense. Helping Afghanistan protect itself from a purely imperialistic invasion from Russia was the appropriate thing to do. Just as helping South Korea defend itself from North Korea was completely appropriate. Russia was completely in the wrong invading Afghanistan. Stop apologizing for the actions of the Soviets.

[Big Guy]

“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”
― Mark Twain“

[GostHacked]

That's complete nonsense. Helping Afghanistan protect itself from a purely imperialistic invasion from Russia was the appropriate thing to do. Just as helping South Korea defend itself from North Korea was completely appropriate. Russia was completely in the wrong invading Afghanistan. Stop apologizing for the actions of the Soviets.

You realize I am referring to the group that spawned Al-Queda right? It's called blowback. Weather it was intentional or not. What made the USA justified in invading Afghanistan? Right, to stop terrorism from one of the groups the USA/CIA helped to create to fight off the Soviets.

[dre]

If only America had it to do over again. Oh well.

Yeah? And what exactly do you think Willard would have done? LOL

[GostHacked]

http://tarpley.net/kiev-fascist-clique-reeling-under-russian-counterstrokes-obama-must-back-off-merkel-ashton-fabius-sikorski-steinmeyer-exposed-as-coup-plotters/

Tarpley gives some details about the players involved in this crisis. Lots of plays by almost everyone.

Show is 1hr long.

[Argus]

Actually Iraq had no choice. The change should have come from within, not from without.

What difference does that make? There was never any possibility of the change being peaceful. In fact, what we saw a few years ago was a civil and religious war being conducted between Iraqis with the US sitting on them. Imagine what it would have been like if the US hadn't been there in force.

But please do not ignore the fact that the USA helped Osama and the Muhajedeen to fight off the Russians. IN a way the USA created their own mess with regards to Al-Queda and Afghanistan. And the turmoil that has ramped up since the invasions. Weekly car bombings in Iraq kill on average 50 people.

So what you're saying is that people are better off under brutal dictatorships and the US should not interfere in any way with that but should applaud the brutal dictators for maintaining peace. Have I got that right?

[GostHacked]

What difference does that make?

You sound like Clinton at the Benghazi hearings.

There was never any possibility of the change being peaceful. In fact, what we saw a few years ago was a civil and religious war being conducted between Iraqis with the US sitting on them. Imagine what it would have been like if the US hadn't been there in force.

They US troops are not there now, and look at what Iraq has become. As I said, weekly car bombings killing scores of people.

So what you're saying is that people are better off under brutal dictatorships and the US should not interfere in any way with that but should applaud the brutal dictators for maintaining peace. Have I got that right?

No, you do not have that right.

First off I am no supporter of Saddam. But the reasons for the invasion were not about humanitarian aid or to combat global terrorism. The invasion was about resources 100%. Afghanistan was more of the same except it was about global pharmaceutical supply of opiates and a place to run pipelines through. Why is opium illegal but used in so many pharmaceuticals?

If the change is to come about, it has to come from within in order to go the long run. You get rid of Saddam and you have a large group of people that never knew how to govern themselves in a democratic type society. So there are going to be problems as they work it out. But they would actually be doing more to change that if they had taken Saddam down themselves.

The military was disbanded as were most police forces creating a total security gap that the US troops were taking to task after the invasion.

[Argus]

You sound like Clinton at the Benghazi hearings.

I wouldn't know. Not being a Tea Party fruitloop or conspiracy theorist I haven't paid any attention.

First off I am no supporter of Saddam. But the reasons for the invasion were not about humanitarian aid or to combat global terrorism. The invasion was about resources 100%. Afghanistan was more of the same except it was about global pharmaceutical supply of opiates and a place to run pipelines through.

These conspiracy theories would be more convincing if the US wound up with control of the things they were allegedly invading to get control for. See, if I was going to invade a country to gain control of it I wouldn't immediately put its leadership up for grabs in an election. I'd appoint a puppet president who would do what I wanted.

Now why do you suppose the Americans didn't do that?

If the change is to come about, it has to come from within in order to go the long run. You get rid of Saddam and you have a large group of people that never knew how to govern themselves in a democratic type society. So there are going to be problems as they work it out. But they would actually be doing more to change that if they had taken Saddam down themselves.

Like Syria, you mean? You think that was better? You think any homegrown change in Iraq would have been any different?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Argus

[dre]

What difference does that make? There was never any possibility of the change being peaceful. In fact, what we saw a few years ago was a civil and religious war being conducted between Iraqis with the US sitting on them. Imagine what it would have been like if the US hadn't been there in force.

So what you're saying is that people are better off under brutal dictatorships and the US should not interfere in any way with that but should applaud the brutal dictators for maintaining peace. Have I got that right?

Saddam being a brutal dictator has absolutely nothing to do with the invasion. The US and west are absolutely fine with brutal dictators as long as they are cooperative. They were fine with Saddam as well until he stopped cooperating... even when he was at his most brutal.

[bleeding heart]

I'm almost impressed that a fringe minority of Commissars to this day try to defend the Iraq War; since the people who opposed it were of course proven correct on nearly every front, the war's defenders (a continuously shrinking number, thankfully) have gotten a little unhinged on the subject.

"There was going to be violence anyway....so the US coalition cannot be responsible for the violence that itself precipitated."

A paraphrase, but I think an accurate one.