Ukraine violence and problems

[JohnFreeman]

Seems Russia might be invading the Crimea...interesting

Some videos of Russian helicopters

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f30_1393584675


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=287_1393605865

[MavsSuperFan]

Beyond giving weapons to the ukrainians, we shouldnt get involved.

We should however secretly supply the ukrainians with goat infantry weapons.

[JohnFreeman]

http://www.hollyzood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/vladimir-putin-riding-bear.jpg

[zoom17]

http://www.hollyzood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/vladimir-putin-riding-bear.jpg

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/thecrescat/files/2013/08/putin-riding-bearsharktopus-FO3cAi.jpg

[Derka]

Putin cares less than a shit about the UN or what the West thinks, so he'll go right on f*cking with nations in his sphere.

[JohnFreeman]

Putin cares less than a shit about the UN or what the West thinks, so he'll go right on f*cking with nations in his sphere.
I actually like Putin, he just laughs off Obama :oldlol:

[Derka]

I actually like Putin, he just laughs off Obama :oldlol:
He laughs off everybody. He quite simply gives less than a shit about anyone.

[JohnFreeman]

He laughs off everybody. He quite simply gives less than a shit about anyone.
I like him and the Russians. They sort of scare me though haha

[KevinNYC]

Sarah Palin was right.

[longhornfan1234]

Obama is getting punked once again. He's softer than Carter.

[JohnFreeman]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=323479
Isn't this a different issue though? Russia wants to take back the Crimea

[sick_brah07]

****en lol at Obama telling Putin not to get involved in another countries business

Most contradicting thing I've ever heard in my life

[JohnFreeman]

****en lol at Obama telling Putin not to get involved in another countries business

Most contradicting thing I've ever heard in my life
It's funny how Obama is like "Ukraine people should decide their own freedom" :facepalm

[Trentknicks]

Beyond giving weapons to the ukrainians, we shouldnt get involved.

We should however secretly supply the ukrainians with goat infantry weapons.
How did that work out with Iraq and Iran, hell even Afghanistan.

[JohnFreeman]

How did that work out with Iraq and Iran, hell even Afghanistan.
Syria as well

[JohnFreeman]

http://i.imgur.com/TRp4Htv.gif
http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac139/thejake1005/deal-with-it-putin-final.gif

[MavsSuperFan]

How did that work out with Iraq and Iran, hell even Afghanistan.
actually Afghanistan overall arguably worked out nicely.

Collapse of the USSR was arguably worth the blow back.

Our mistake with Iraq was invading it that has nothing to do with giving them weapons. From a purely selfish american perspective the iran-iraq war was a positive. it weakened both of our enemies.

Iraq was tough because of asymmetric warfare. their standing army was obliterated in 2 weeks, the weapons we armed them with did not help them against us. Same for Afghanistan

[JohnFreeman]

actually Afghanistan overall arguably worked out nicely.

Collapse of the USSR was arguably worth the blow back.

Our mistake with Iraq was invading it that has nothing to do with giving them weapons. From a purely selfish american perspective the iran-iraq war was a positive. it weakened both of our enemies.

Iraq was tough because of asymmetric warfare. their standing army was obliterated in 2 weeks.
Why? Apparently it is just as bad if not worse then when the initial invasion happened.

[MavsSuperFan]

Why? Apparently it is just as bad if not worse then when the initial invasion happened.
We armed the afghans when the soviets invaded them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

We gave them stinger missiles and other small arms. The stingers were effective against the soviet helicopter gunships.

The soviet invasion of Afghanistan was disaster, that contributed to their collapse. Would have happened anyways, but it sped it up.

[Trentknicks]

actually Afghanistan overall arguably worked out nicely.

Collapse of the USSR was arguably worth the blow back.

Our mistake with Iraq was invading it that has nothing to do with giving them weapons. From a purely selfish american perspective the iran-iraq war was a positive. it weakened both of our enemies.

Iraq was tough because of asymmetric warfare. their standing army was obliterated in 2 weeks, the weapons we armed them with did not help them against us. Same for Afghanistan
I've been reading "Dude where's my Country" by Michael Moore lately and it's pretty eye opening. I really think the overthrowing of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein was done for an increased hold on the region.

I mean come on, the USA (pre-9/11) was negotiating with the Taliban for an oil pipeline through their lands to the gulf, then 9/11 happens and the deal is obviously off. Taliban is removed and then the pipeline appears months later.

Still 50/50 on whether Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, it's a narrative we've been fed but I've seen plenty of programs with a negative view of this and to be honest, they've provided a lot better evidence to support their claims then just "Osama did it".

[KingBeasley08]

I like Putin as well. Dude's a real life James Bond villain. Shit's comical :oldlol:

[JohnFreeman]

We armed the afghans when the soviets invaded them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

We gave them stinger missiles and other small arms. The stingers were effective against the soviet helicopter gunships.

The soviet invasion of Afghanistan was disaster, that contributed to their collapse. Would have happened anyways, but it sped it up.
Sorry I thought you were speaking of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Must suck fighting against your own weapons though :lol

[BurningHammer]

I like Putin as well. Dude's a real life James Bond villain. Shit's comical :oldlol:
He actually once stated he wants to be one too! :oldlol:

[JohnFreeman]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/32088c941bfa5d8a17aa7a75ac8286c5/tumblr_mt29j7YJX71qjqzoeo6_250.gif
http://31.media.tumblr.com/c6a4ad34121c622555c635c178167d2c/tumblr_mye0mrT7Ts1qfb3m3o1_500.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/7931f0d0a0e9d96b47586913924b05ef/tumblr_n0xexgauXk1rtp3uyo1_500.jpg

[MavsSuperFan]

Sorry I thought you were speaking of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Must suck fighting against your own weapons though :lol
Honestly, the biggest problem was the improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
The weapons we gave them wasn't the problem.

No army on earth can fight the US conventionally.

[JohnFreeman]

Honestly, the biggest problem was the improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
The weapons we gave them wasn't the problem.

No army on earth can fight the US conventionally.
China?

[MavsSuperFan]

With regards to this situation in Ukraine, it's against American interests to directly conflict with Russia.

Luckily this is the rare occasion the self interested action is arguably the moral course of action.

IE. Arming the ethnic Ukrainians if the Russians invade.

It will bleed the Russians and support the moral side IMO.

[JohnFreeman]

Why do America care though? Just to disagree with the Ruskies?

[MavsSuperFan]

China?
No China's military is technologically backward compared to us. Due to the strength of their economy that might change drastically in a decade or 2, but currently China would have trouble with the Japanese navy (and yes the Japanese have one of the most advanced air forces and navy despite calling them self defence forces).

[JohnFreeman]

No China's military is technologically backward compared to us. Due to the strength of their economy that might change drastically in a decade or 2, but currently China would have trouble with the Japanese navy (and yes the Japanese have one of the most advanced air forces and navy despite calling them self defence forces).
I have a feeling China have some secret weapon, like Godzilla or something

[MavsSuperFan]

Why do America care though? Just to disagree with the Ruskies?
If we could incorporate Poland and Ukraine into nato and set up a missile shield there that would drastically change the balance of global power.

Also honestly would probably be best for Ukrainians and polish to live with more free-market reforms of the West. Having more ties to the west is in the long-term interest of these Eastern European countries. It's why most of these countries desire to join the west and only the ethnic Russian population is against it

[MMM]

If we could incorporate Poland and Ukraine into nato and set up a missile shield there that would drastically change the balance of global power.

Is it really necessary to add Poland and Ukraine to Nato. Afghanistan showed just how much a failure Nato is, with only a few nations like the Brits, Canadians and the US doing the heavy lifting while the rest stayed in safer parts of the country. What will adding those countries do to benefit Nato.



Also honestly would probably be best for Ukrainians and polish to live with more free-market reforms of the West. Having more ties to the west is in the long-term interest of these Eastern European countries. It's why most of these countries desire to join the west and only the ethnic Russian population is against it

They might want closer ties to the West but Russia isn't going to give up its influence in the region so easily. Incremental steps to western reforms might be tolerable but Ukraine needs to strengthen its internal political mechanisms.

[Trollsmasher]

With whom do the Soviets share the border?

With whomever they want.

You don't **** with Putin. Hopefully he shits on EU and accelerates its inevitable end.

[JohnFreeman]

With whom do the Soviets share the border?

With whomever they want.

You don't **** with Putin. Hopefully he shits on EU and accelerates its inevitable end.
Hopefully, I like Putin. I love the way he dismisses Obama and the American government

http://i.4cdn.org/b/src/1393661234013.jpg

[tbc]

Is it really necessary to add Poland and Ukraine to Nato.

Poland joined NATO in 1999...

Americans..

[MMM]

Poland joined NATO in 1999...

Americans..

actually Canadian but no excuse for the ignorance
still feel that NATO has outlived its usefullness

[lakers_forever]

http://www.tomatobubble.com/putin_obama.html

[East_Stone_Ya]

Russia needs to show EU and NATO that he still calls shots around his border...just like they did with Georgia

[Nick Young]

It's funny how Obama is like "Ukraine people should decide their own freedom" :facepalm
In terms of world leaders, Putin is winning.

Obama a straight punk, sheeeit it sucks when other people arent scared of the US president. Bush sucked but atleast other countries were afraid of him.

[MavsSuperFan]

Is it really necessary to add Poland and Ukraine to Nato. Afghanistan showed just how much a failure Nato is, with only a few nations like the Brits, Canadians and the US doing the heavy lifting while the rest stayed in safer parts of the country. What will adding those countries do to benefit Nato.



They might want closer ties to the West but Russia isn't going to give up its influence in the region so easily. Incremental steps to western reforms might be tolerable but Ukraine needs to strengthen its internal political mechanisms.
NATO is just a way to move our influence closer to Russia. Of course it's not necessary. No empire in history is necessary. I am jus proposing what I think is the logic behind America trying to expand influence into Eastern Europe.

America doesn't rely on NATO for military support. We rely on NATO for moral superiority. We are unique in that when we fight wars we try to come up with an argument about how we are being moral and fighting for justice. It's why we always try to find allies for our wars no matter how insignificant the actual contribution.

There certain people in the pentagon and state department that badly want to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe. We say it's to defend against Iran, but that doesn't even make sense

[MavsSuperFan]

Poland joined NATO in 1999...

Americans..
Yes, the point was adding Ukraine has a similar logic to adding Poland.

[CelticBaller]

I like Putin as well. Dude's a real life James Bond villain. Shit's comical :oldlol:
I like this too, but **** Russians

[CelticBaller]

With whom do the Soviets share the border?

With whomever they want.

You don't **** with Putin. Hopefully he shits on EU and accelerates its inevitable end.
only a shitty nation will love being under control of another's :oldlol:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

so regvolution was pretty random and let by popular marionettes of the western culture( Klitschko, Timoschenko)
no wonder Putin is pissed and he has all the rights to invade the Krim area.
there are actually 60% Russians in that area and it has a direct border to Russia.
nothing like America attacking random countries 10000 kilo meters away for "weapons of mass destruction" :roll: :roll: :roll: :facepalm
its also good of Obama not to do anything.
what the fck does he have to do with Ukraine???:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[Nick Young]

Russian parliament unanimously approved Putin to send troops in to Ukraine. Russia taking back what's theirs:rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

[MavsSuperFan]

Russian parliament unanimously approved Putin to send troops in to Ukraine. Russia conquering and installing a puppet in Ukraine :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:
Fixed

[kNIOKAS]

Russian parliament unanimously approved Putin to send troops in to Ukraine. Russia taking back what's theirs:rockon: :rockon: :rockon:
Why you consistently choose to be evil? Promoting Ghengis Khan and now this. What's wrong with you?

[Nick Young]

Why you consistently choose to be evil? Promoting Ghengis Khan and now this. What's wrong with you?
How is Putin evil?

You think the US sponsored Ukrainian protesters aren't evil?

[MavsSuperFan]

How is Putin evil?

You think the US sponsored Ukrainian protesters aren't evil?
there is a strong anti russian sentiment among ethnic ukrainians. They want to be close to the west and resent centuries of russian domination.

Also recently russia bullied them by messing with the oil pipeline. The US is taking advantage for our own personal reasons, but this is one of those convenient times where the moral action coincides with the self interested action for america.

[Nick Young]

This isn't a good vs evil thing. Putin isn't evil and Russia isn't evil.

[kNIOKAS]

This isn't a good vs evil thing. Putin isn't evil and Russia isn't evil.
Big countries occupying and oppressing smaller countries is evil.

[zoom17]

Putin always punks Obama.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Big countries occupying and oppressing smaller countries is evil.
sounds JUST like the USA:roll: :roll: :roll:

[kNIOKAS]

sounds JUST like the USA:roll: :roll: :roll:
Yeah.:coleman:

[EricGordon23]

Putin always punks Obama.

And will continue to do so

[MavsSuperFan]

This isn't a good vs evil thing. Putin isn't evil and Russia isn't evil.
What putin and russia want to do in ukraine is evil. They are conquering a country.

sounds JUST like the USA:roll: :roll: :roll:
2 wrongs dont make a right:no:

[zoom17]

What putin and russia want to do in ukraine is evil. They are conquering a country.

2 wrongs dont make a right:no:

:facepalm

[ZenMaster]

What putin and russia want to do in ukraine is evil. They are conquering a country.

2 wrongs dont make a right:no:

There's this other thread about Americans who are ashamed of it or whatever, well your post is good example why.

[longhornfan1234]

In terms of world leaders, Putin is winning.

Obama a straight punk, sheeeit it sucks when other people arent scared of the US president. Bush sucked but atleast other countries were afraid of him.
:roll: :roll:


Bush warned Russia to not invade Georgia. Russia laughed and did it anyway.

[IamRAMBO24]

1. Historically Crimea is a part of Russia but didn't they give it to Ukraine? So the prime minister of Crimea is a Russian allie and asked for Putin's help but at the same time the region belongs to Ukraine? Isn't that lovely.

2. The main purpose of US involvement has always been to build a missile defense system near Russia and prob take control of the black sea, whether it is truly a "defensive" system is debateable.

[MavsSuperFan]

There's this other thread about Americans who are ashamed of it or whatever, well your post is good example why.
If we help ukraine by giving them weapons, that will be a good thing, from a moral perspective.

The invasion of iraq was wrong.
the invasion of ukraine will be wrong if russia does it.

2 wrongs dont make a right.

If you see a guy beat his wife, that doesnt mean you should.

[kentatm]

Our mistake with Iraq was invading it that has nothing to do with giving them weapons. From a purely selfish american perspective the iran-iraq war was a positive.


It strengthened Iran by taking out their major regional rival.

[IamRAMBO24]

If we help ukraine by giving them weapons, that will be a good thing, from a moral perspective.

The invasion of iraq was wrong.
the invasion of ukraine will be wrong if russia does it.

2 wrongs dont make a right.

If you see a guy beat his wife, that doesnt mean you should.

I don't think the US should be involved at all.

[EricGordon23]

I don't think the US should be involved at all.

This guy gets it!

[kNIOKAS]

If we help ukraine by giving them weapons, that will be a good thing, from a moral perspective.

The invasion of iraq was wrong.
the invasion of ukraine will be wrong if russia does it.

2 wrongs dont make a right.

If you see a guy beat his wife, that doesnt mean you should.
mmm Maybe not. US giving them weapons would antagonize Russia, make more pretext for Russia to invade and would cost a lot of lives of Ukrainian people. Unless you think that Ukraine could successfully protect itself with those weapons fromt the Russia.

[IamRAMBO24]

If we help ukraine by giving them weapons, that will be a good thing, from a moral perspective.
.

It is actually not a moral position. The word "moral" itself is open ended. For it to be a valid moral position, the position can't be hyprocritical.

1. US has already invaded multiple countries, therefore it is hyprocritical for them to say Russia should not invade Ukraine.

This is a contradiction in thought and it is an imperfect maxim; for example, if a murderer tells society they should not kill other people, then his position is a contradiction because he is killing other people. He is not acting in accordance to the will of society, but he is acting based on his selfish means and then preaching about peace.

Therefore, this person is not speaking from a moral position, but agenda driven.

[Nick Young]

Big countries occupying and oppressing smaller countries is evil.
then USA is evil and Im an American who loves my country saying that. Who are you to pass moral judgement? Are you Jesus?

[kNIOKAS]

then USA is evil and Im an American who loves my country saying that. Who are you to pass moral judgement? Are you Jesus?
Who's passing moral judgement, donkey-ass?:biggums:

[KevinNYC]

Poland joined NATO in 1999...

Americans..

I blame the media, MSNBC in this case

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhl7t7VCcAABxCf.jpg:large

Apparently when no one was looking the Czech Republic and Slovakia got back together.

[Lakers Legend#32]

McCain never met a war he did not like.

[Nick Young]

Who's passing moral judgement, donkey-ass?:biggums:
The dumbass calling things evil.

[MMM]

I blame the media, MSNBC in this case

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhl7t7VCcAABxCf.jpg:large

Apparently when no one was looking the Czech Republic and Slovakia got back together.

:roll:

would love for that to happen actually

[kNIOKAS]

The dumbass calling things evil.
I bet. When somebody brings up something as clear cut evil as occupying and oppressing another country, you call him Jesus. :rolleyes:

[Trollsmasher]

I blame the media, MSNBC in this case

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhl7t7VCcAABxCf.jpg:large

Apparently when no one was looking the Czech Republic and Slovakia got back together.
****ing retards:facepalm

[Nick Young]

I bet. When somebody brings up something as clear cut evil as occupying and oppressing another country, you call him Jesus. :rolleyes:
Every country in the world has done this or tried to do this. That means according to you every country is evil. If every country is evil and they're all evil, then evil is relative to nothing. Therefore, no countries are evil, if we go by your idiot logic.

[Dresta]

Every country in the world has done this or tried to do this. That means according to you every country is evil. If every country is evil and they're all evil, then evil is relative to nothing. Therefore, no countries are evil, if we go by your idiot logic.
His logic is downright retarded. If we go by it it would be 'evil' to occupy Germany after driving out the nazis, but apparently good to allow the camps to stay open, jews to keep getting gassed, and the nazis to dominate through sheer force. He makes no sense.

He also needs to define country more clearly if he is going to use ambiguous terms to make absolutist statements. Is a 'country' not just an accumulation of individuals? Thus if the vast majority of the individuals in a country are being suppressed through fear and violence, but the power is in the hands of a very few, who are abusing the rest, does not that country lose some right to sovereignty? Isn't it foolish to refer to the will of this 'country' and the will of its people as one and the same?

[CeltsGarlic]

His logic is downright retarded. If we go by it it would be 'evil' to occupy Germany after driving out the nazis, but apparently good to allow the camps to stay open, jews to keep getting gassed, and the nazis to dominate through sheer force. He makes no sense.

He also needs to define country more clearly if he is going to use ambiguous terms to make absolutist statements. Is a 'country' not just an accumulation of individuals? Thus if the vast majority of the individuals in a country are being suppressed through fear and violence, but the power is in the hands of a very few, who are abusing the rest, does not that country lose some right to sovereignty? Isn't it foolish to refer to the will of this 'country' and the will of its people as one and the same?

weeell on this one.. :D

just jk jeff dont cry plz

[B-hoop]

Seriously this seems like the appeasement with Germany before WW2. Russia will just come in and take over Crimea, and possibly other ethnically russian dominant regions in Ukraine all in the name of defending the russian people living there. No one will do anything about it because that would mean escalating into a war.

I doubt Ukraine as we know it will survive until year's end, about half of the country speaks russian and sees themselves as russians.

[knickballer]

Seriously this seems like the appeasement with Germany before WW2. Russia will just come in and take over Crimea, and possibly other ethnically russian dominant regions in Ukraine all in the name of defending the russian people living there. No one will do anything about it because that would mean escalating into a war.

I doubt Ukraine as we know it will survive until year's end, about half of the country speaks russian and sees themselves as russians.

Russians are only 18% of the population and almost all of the Slavic population in Europe-Asia speak Cyrillic or "Russian" so that means Ukrainians as well..

But not like Ukraine in shambles can do anything about it as Russia is the far superior force..

BTW, here's the population of Russians in Ukraine by %(2001).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Russians_Ukraine_2001.PNG/800px-Russians_Ukraine_2001.PNG

[fiddy]

Russians are only 18% of the population and almost all of the Slavic population in Europe-Asia speak Cyrillic or "Russian" so that means Ukrainians as well..

But not like Ukraine in shambles can do anything about it as Russia is the far superior force..

BTW, here's the population of Russians in Ukraine by %(2001).

1. fake map
2. cyrillic is bulgarian
3. stfu

[kNIOKAS]

Every country in the world has done this or tried to do this. That means according to you every country is evil. If every country is evil and they're all evil, then evil is relative to nothing. Therefore, no countries are evil, if we go by your idiot logic.
:biggums:


His logic is downright retarded. If we go by it it would be 'evil' to occupy Germany after driving out the nazis, but apparently good to allow the camps to stay open, jews to keep getting gassed, and the nazis to dominate through sheer force. He makes no sense.

He also needs to define country more clearly if he is going to use ambiguous terms to make absolutist statements. Is a 'country' not just an accumulation of individuals? Thus if the vast majority of the individuals in a country are being suppressed through fear and violence, but the power is in the hands of a very few, who are abusing the rest, does not that country lose some right to sovereignty? Isn't it foolish to refer to the will of this 'country' and the will of its people as one and the same?
Have I said that? This is very serious implications you're trying to draw from the fact that countries occupying other countries is evil. There's no logic in what you said, I can agree on that.

[zoom17]

Ukraine Navy chief switches sides.

http://rt.com/news/navy-chief-ukraine-crimea-485/

[step_back]

China?

China can barely create something from 15 years ago let alone compete with America. China can't invent on it's own, it can only replicate on a massive scale.

America's only challenger was Russia. Russia still has a superb air force and Navy but America took it's military above and beyond what anyone else could do with technology. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if America started handing out light sabers to their troops.

[IamRAMBO24]

China can barely create something from 15 years ago let alone compete with America. China can't invent on it's own, it can only replicate on a massive scale.

America's only challenger was Russia. Russia still has a superb air force and Navy but America took it's military above and beyond what anyone else could do with technology. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if America started handing out light sabers to their troops.

I would argue economic and psychological warfare are more powerful than weapons. There are too many limitations on weapons, but with those two, there are no restrictions.

[KingBeasley08]

China can barely create something from 15 years ago let alone compete with America. China can't invent on it's own, it can only replicate on a massive scale.

America's only challenger was Russia. Russia still has a superb air force and Navy but America took it's military above and beyond what anyone else could do with technology. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if America started handing out light sabers to their troops.
Yep, China is the USA's main economic rival but militarily, the two Cold War giants are the still top dogs even though we pushed the distance between us quite a bit in the past 20 years

[step_back]

Yep, China is the USA's main economic rival but militarily, the two Cold War giants are the still top dogs even though we pushed the distance between us quite a bit in the past 20 years

The downfall of the USSR in 1992 was the start of the decline for the Russian Military. Having to catch up 20 years is near enough impossible. That's not to say that Russia couldn't deliver a heavy blow though. Just not has head to head as it once was.

War has become more a game of chess than it has force.

[KingBeasley08]

The downfall of the USSR in 1992 was the start of the decline for the Russian Military. Having to catch up 20 years is near enough impossible. That's not to say that Russia couldn't deliver a heavy blow though. Just not has head to head as it once was.

War has become more a game of chess than it has force.
Yep, Russia isn't on the USA's level for sure. But I think they're still at number 2 overall

[Dresta]

:biggums:


Have I said that? This is very serious implications you're trying to draw from the fact that countries occupying other countries is evil. There's no logic in what you said, I can agree on that.
That is not a fact: it is a dogmatic, absolutist and moralising statement that runs contrary to facts, and that's what my example showed, though there are many, many other examples that would illustrate the same point.

[kNIOKAS]

That is not a fact: it is a dogmatic, absolutist and moralising statement that runs contrary to facts, and that's what my example showed, though there are many, many other examples that would illustrate the same point.
How that runs contrary to facts?

What you said there wasn't an example, it was an incoherent preposterous statement. I bet you could make many of those - I know I couldn't. I couldn't come up with more absurd implications if I had to do it for my life.

[MavsSuperFan]

It strengthened Iran by taking out their major regional rival.
I am not referring to the american invasion of iraq in 2003. this was an unmitigated disaster. America looked evil, iran was strengthened, we destroyed our yearly budget, 5000+ deaths, etc.

I am referring to the iran iraq war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

8 years, massive casualties, stalemate.

We supplied both sides with weapons.
We even give wmds to iraq. (sarin nerve gas)

[Nick Young]

Ukraine Navy chief switches sides.

http://rt.com/news/navy-chief-ukraine-crimea-485/
He didn't switch sides. He declared loyalty to an independant Crimean republic. He created a new side:facepalm

[kentatm]

http://i.imgur.com/gLhAACg.jpg

[MavsSuperFan]

mmm Maybe not. US giving them weapons would antagonize Russia, make more pretext for Russia to invade and would cost a lot of lives of Ukrainian people. Unless you think that Ukraine could successfully protect itself with those weapons fromt the Russia.
no, the russians would obviously occupy them. But occupations could be costly (eg soviet occupation of afghanistan, american occupation of afghanistan, british occupation of afghanistan, alexander the great's occupation of afghanistan).

Its up the ukrainians live under the russian heel, or continuing fighting asymmetrically after they are conquered. If there is a group that wants to fight, there is no reason not to give them weapons. It would be both moral (supporting the hopes and dreams of a conquered people), and bleed the russians (an american interest).


I don't think the US should be involved at all.
You dont think Ukrainians deserve sovereignty?


It is actually not a moral position. The word "moral" itself is open ended. For it to be a valid moral position, the position can't be hyprocritical.

1. US has already invaded multiple countries, therefore it is hyprocritical for them to say Russia should not invade Ukraine.

This is a contradiction in thought and it is an imperfect maxim; for example, if a murderer tells society they should not kill other people, then his position is a contradiction because he is killing other people. He is not acting in accordance to the will of society, but he is acting based on his selfish means and then preaching about peace.

Therefore, this person is not speaking from a moral position, but agenda driven.
If a guy beats his wife, would it make it any less moral for him to give another abused wife some mace?

[IamRAMBO24]

If a guy beats his wife, would it make it any less moral for him to give another abused wife some mace?

If a man beats his wife and tells another man not to beat his wife, then that is a position of a contradiction. The will has to fit the ends. It doesn't make him a moral person just because he is advocating against abuse; he has to be a just person for his motives to truly be ethical.

[Dresta]

How that runs contrary to facts?

What you said there wasn't an example, it was an incoherent preposterous statement. I bet you could make many of those - I know I couldn't. I couldn't come up with more absurd implications if I had to do it for my life.
How is it incoherent and preposterous? If you consider it 'evil' to occupy a country (as you said) then invading Germany and liberating the camps and oppression that was being suffered there would also be 'evil' as a consequence. That is neither 'incoherent' or 'preposterous.' Occupying West Germany and providing the aid and structure to turn it from a heap of rubble into the powerhouse of Europe (rather than turning it over to the Soviets), doing a similar thing with Japan; see the contrast in conditions between the formerly occupied South of Korea and the 'freedom' loving North - THAT is how it runs entirely contrary to facts. There are many examples when occupying a country has been both beneficial and necessary, so for you to define all occupation as 'evil' is ****ing idiotic.

As a Polish person myself i would have been ****ing delighted if the US had invaded and occupied Poland to provide a barrier against the Soviet Union, instead of being sold down the river with the rest of Eastern Europe into the hands of Stalin (far more evil imo).

Perhaps is your poor, deluded mind, every other person is evil, and you are absolute exemplification of good? This is the only way a functioning human brain could be incapable of processing such simple logic.

[IamRAMBO24]

For example, if I steal, and I tell a bunch of kids not to steal, it doesn't make me a moral person because I'm stealing myself. For me to be from a moral standpoint, I have to not steal and tell those kids not to steal. There has to be no contradiction in my motives.

[MavsSuperFan]

If a man beats his wife and tells another man not to beat his wife, then that is a position of a contradiction. The will has to fit the ends. It doesn't make him a moral person just because he is advocating against abuse; he has to be a just person for his motives to truly be ethical.
The act of beat his wife (america invading countries) is immoral.
The act of giving another abused wife mace (supplying weapons to countries russia invades) is moral.

The man (america) is a hypocrite though, I will grant you that. and perhaps overall immoral, but the particular act of giving weapons to afghanistan in the 1980s was moral.

[IamRAMBO24]

You dont think Ukrainians deserve sovereignty?


This is a delusional way of thinking. There is no sovereignty. Ukraine and crimea were under russia control. Both of their prime ministers were russian puppets, hence one was overthrown and the other was calling for help.

There will be no sovereignty. It is either the US controls the region or russia. That is why I don't think the US should be involve; if the ukraines can beat russia on their own, then they might actually get their independence, but with US involvement it'll make things worse in the region because more atrocties will be committed when sh*t gets real, and in the end they'll be under another sh*tty occupation.

[Dresta]

If a man beats his wife and tells another man not to beat his wife, then that is a position of a contradiction. The will has to fit the ends. It doesn't make him a moral person just because he is advocating against abuse; he has to be a just person for his motives to truly be ethical.
I do think you need to be careful not to anthropomorphise the United States government: it is not a static entity. When you say 'the US has invaded before...' what you really mean is that a collection of individuals have made the decision to use US state and military power to invade another country. So, for example, if there were no former invaders making the statement and directing the new government, in saying 'do not invade' there would be no hypocrisy.

It's like when people place the crimes of an asshole like Kissinger squarely on the shoulders of the 'US' and use it to say 'the US did this, the US did that' - it is not strictly accurate. Though, of course, the complicity of most US people is there for not pursuing the arrest and trial of this scumbag. Instead he lives on as a kind of state hero still :facepalm .

[IamRAMBO24]

The act of beat his wife (america invading countries) is immoral.
The act of giving another abused wife mace (supplying weapons to countries russia invades) is moral.

The man (america) is a hypocrite though, I will grant you that. and perhaps overall immoral, but the particular act of giving weapons to afghanistan in the 1980s was moral.

The act of giving weapons is agenda based. The true motive does not fit the agenda, so therefore that is immoral.

You aren't that naive to believe the US is truly concern with Ukrainian sovereignty are you?

[IamRAMBO24]

I do think you need to be careful not to anthropomorphise the United States government: it is not a static entity. When you say 'the US has invaded before...' what you really mean is that a collection of individuals have made the decision to use US state and military power to invade another country. So, for example, if there were no former invaders making the statement and directing the new government, in saying 'do not invade' there would be no hypocrisy.

It's like when people place the crimes of an asshole like Kissinger squarely on the shoulders of the 'US' and use it to say 'the US did this, the US did that' - it is not strictly accurate. Though, of course, the complicity of most US people is there for not pursuing the arrest and trial of this scumbag. Instead he lives on as a kind of state hero still :facepalm .

By US I am implying US government and not the citizens.

[MavsSuperFan]

This is a delusional way of thinking. There is no sovereignty. Ukraine and crimea were under russia control. Both of their prime ministers were russian puppets, hence one was overthrown and the other was calling for help.

There will be no sovereignty. It is either the US controls the region or russia. That is why I don't think the US should be involve; if the ukraines can beat russia on their own, then they might actually get their independence, but with US involvement it'll make things worse in the region because more atrocties will be committed when sh*t gets real.
History has shown clearly:

Being an American satellite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being a russian satellite

I mean look at canada. Those guys have an awesome country.

[MavsSuperFan]

The act of giving weapons is agenda based. The true motive does not fit the agenda, so therefore that is immoral.

You aren't that naive to believe the US is truly concern with Ukrainian sovereignty are you?
Obviously our #1 reason is to weaken russia. Also move the further most of our influence into what historically has been the russian sphere.

The Western dream of chipping away at russian power.

but the Number 73rd reason is probably ukrainian sovereignty. its not high on the list, but its there.

[IamRAMBO24]

History has shown clearly:

Being an American satellite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being a russian satellite

I mean look at canada. Those guys have an awesome country.

It goes both ways, look at africa and the middle east under western imperialism.

[MavsSuperFan]

It goes both ways, look at africa and the middle east under western imperialism.
Russians would have done worse than the british and the french.

[IamRAMBO24]

Obviously our #1 reason is to weaken russia. Also move the further most of our influence into what historically has been the russian sphere.

The Western dream of chipping away at russian power.

but the Number 73rd reason is probably ukrainian sovereignty. its not high on the list, but its there.

I'm a peace guy. I think all this occupation under the fake slogan of "morals" and "democracy" is running it's course. Not only will it hurt other countries, but our citizens as well.

If the Ukranians really want their independence, let them fight for it. At least they will have that option without our involvement.

[IamRAMBO24]

Russians would have done worse than the british and the french.

Do you even know why they over threw their leader?

[MavsSuperFan]

I'm a peace guy. I think all this occupation under the fake slogan of "morals" and "democracy" is running it's course. Not only will it hurt other countries, but our citizens as well.

If the Ukranians really want their independence, let them fight for it. At least they will have that option without our involvement.
I am totally opposed to direct US involvement. However if the ukrainians want to fight, we have a shit load of surplus m-16s laying around.

[MavsSuperFan]

Do you even know why they over threw their leader?
Which nation are you referring to. I know some, but not all.

[IamRAMBO24]

I am totally opposed to direct US involvement. However if the ukrainians want to fight, we have a shit load of surplus m-16s laying around.

Supplying weapons is direct involvement.

[MavsSuperFan]

Supplying weapons is direct involvement.
with that logic the US fought the soviet union directly during the korean war.

USSR supplied MIGs and even pilots to help the chinese.

[IamRAMBO24]

Which nation are you referring to. I know some, but not all.

Ukraine.

You do know half of the population of 46 million is pro US and the other half is pro-russia right?

Sounds more like a power grab than any bullsh*t sovereignty.

[IamRAMBO24]

with that logic the US fought the soviet union directly during the korean war.

USSR supplied MIGs and even pilots to help the chinese.

Hey if you are providing logistics, weapons, and controlling the outcome of the war that sounds like a direct involvement to me.

[MavsSuperFan]

Ukraine.

You do know half of the population of 46 million is pro US and the other half is pro-russia right?

Sounds more like a power grab than any bullsh*t sovereignty.
your wrong about the percentages. only the ethnic russians want to stay with russia.

[kNIOKAS]

How is it incoherent and preposterous? If you consider it 'evil' to occupy a country (as you said) then invading Germany and liberating the camps and oppression that was being suffered there would also be 'evil' as a consequence. That is neither 'incoherent' or 'preposterous.' Occupying West Germany and providing the aid and structure to turn it from a heap of rubble into the powerhouse of Europe (rather than turning it over to the Soviets), doing a similar thing with Japan; see the contrast in conditions between the formerly occupied South of Korea and the 'freedom' loving North - THAT is how it runs entirely contrary to facts. There are many examples when occupying a country has been both beneficial and necessary, so for you to define all occupation as 'evil' is ****ing idiotic.

As a Polish person myself i would have been ****ing delighted if the US had invaded and occupied Poland to provide a barrier against the Soviet Union, instead of being sold down the river with the rest of Eastern Europe into the hands of Stalin (far more evil imo).

Perhaps is your poor, deluded mind, every other person is evil, and you are absolute exemplification of good? This is the only way a functioning human brain could be incapable of processing such simple logic.
So you agree that US occupying the Poland would be evil. :coleman:

no, the russians would obviously occupy them. But occupations could be costly (eg soviet occupation of afghanistan, american occupation of afghanistan, british occupation of afghanistan, alexander the great's occupation of afghanistan).

Its up the ukrainians live under the russian heel, or continuing fighting asymmetrically after they are conquered. If there is a group that wants to fight, there is no reason not to give them weapons. It would be both moral (supporting the hopes and dreams of a conquered people), and bleed the russians (an american interest).


You dont think Ukrainians deserve sovereignty?


If a guy beats his wife, would it make it any less moral for him to give another abused wife some mace?
It's like giving Serbia's extremists weapons in 1914. That may cause more mayhem...
In this case it would upset the Russia and make them even more defensive (they've been paranoid their whole history), and therefore start a big anti-US campaign. Also, it would be a pretext for more violence. It'd be similar to providing guns for indians in their struggle against the British empire - not the way to go.

I honestly disagree with the notion that it would be supporting the hopes and dreams of conquered people nor that it would bleed the russians. No, not in a long run. :no:

[IamRAMBO24]

your wrong about the percentages. only the ethnic russians want to stay with russia.

Flaws in your argument:

1. Ukraine is only a sovereign country on paper, but it has always been under russian control.

2. You are being dishonest when you are speaking of morals. It is nothing more than a propaganda tool.

3. US involvement has nothing to do with Ukraine sovereignty.

[B-hoop]

your wrong about the percentages. only the ethnic russians want to stay with russia.

That's not true, there is a big mentality difference between western and eastern Ukraine. A lot of ukranians/non russians who live in eastern Ukraine, especially the states in southeast Ukraine actually don't care/prefer Russia then a Kiev-government who they see as corrupt and useless.

I lived with 2 Ukrainians, who weren't russians, for 3 months about 2 years ago and they were from Donetsk. Both said that most businesses and people are pro-russians in their state.

A lot of the money going into that region comes from Russia.

[MMM]

Obviously our #1 reason is to weaken russia. Also move the further most of our influence into what historically has been the russian sphere.

The Western dream of chipping away at russian power.

but the Number 73rd reason is probably ukrainian sovereignty. its not high on the list, but its there.

No #73 reason doesn't exist at all its naive to suggest otherwise.

[JohnFreeman]

I support the Ruskies.

[zoom17]

I support the Ruskies.

yeah let Russia deal with Ukraine.

[JohnFreeman]

http://i.imgur.com/vi42NYA.jpg

[KevinNYC]

History has shown clearly:

Being an American satellite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being a russian satellite

I mean look at canada. Those guys have an awesome country.

Do you think it's because of the US, or because they are part of the British Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations) and have as their Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada)

[JohnFreeman]

http://i.4cdn.org/b/src/1393826940402.jpg

[Dresta]

So you agree that US occupying the Poland would be evil. :coleman:


err.. no, i agreed no such thing; it was you who brought the term 'evil' into the discussion. I was simply pointing out that it is a question of alternatives: if you have two choices of action, and one is clearly worse than the other, then choosing the less bad option cannot be construed as 'evil' because it is an attempt to take the best available option. Ergo, your dogmatism 'occupying a country is evil' without any qualifiers, is demonstrably false.

[CeltsGarlic]

:roll: at those pics

[kentatm]

History has shown clearly:

Being an American satellite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being a russian satellite

I mean look at canada. Those guys have an awesome country.

:biggums:

uhh...

Canada is a BRITISH satellite.

We have exactly Jack and Shit to do with how their country has developed. I mean, other than invading them and getting our asses kicked the **** out in the War of 1812.

[Derka]

OMG, that Putin/Obama phone call meme. :roll:

Its scary how right it is.

[MavsSuperFan]

Do you think it's because of the US, or because they are part of the British Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations) and have as their Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada)
The british have been out satellites since the end of WW2. :lol :lol at you for still pretending the brits dont automatically follow us to war.

[MavsSuperFan]

:biggums:

uhh...

Canada is a BRITISH satellite.

We have exactly Jack and Shit to do with how their country has developed. I mean, other than invading them and getting our asses kicked the **** out in the War of 1812.
Britain is an american satellite since the end of WW2. Come on man. They even lied to their people to fight an illegal war for us in Iraq. And canada has been an american satellite since at least then.

I wasnt refering to us helping them. I was referring to us not doing to them what the russians have historically done to their satellites.

Eg. we havent stolen the alberta oil fields and natural gas deposits. They should honestly be thankful for that. We have been far more benevolent and kind to canada and mexico than we would have to be if we were only concerned with their militaries.

Look what the soviets did to hungary in 1956. We are a very peaceful nation when compared to other super/great powers of history.

Eg. we are far nicer than the USSR, british empire, nazi empire, russian empire, japanese empire, tong dynasty china, mongol empire, german empire, spanish empire, french empire, etc.

In relative terms (not absolute) to our military capabilities we are altruistic and peaceful.

And honestly 1812 wasn't even canada. it was the british empire. thats like bragging about your dad indecisively winning a fight. US power really started to grow after the spanish american war.


Canada is a BRITISH satellite.
Was a british colony. Britain has no satellites in 2014. It itself is a satellite of america.

[KevinNYC]

The british have been out satellites since the end of WW2. :lol :lol at you for still pretending the brits dont automatically follow us to war.

Yeah, I remember all those Canadians and British soldiers dying in Vietnam.

:lol :lol at you for not knowing enough history to justify your argument.

[KevinNYC]

:roll: at those pics

I do like Crimea River.

[Dresta]

Britain is an american satellite since the end of WW2. Come on man. They even lied to their people to fight an illegal war for us in Iraq. And canada has been an american satellite since at least then.

I wasnt refering to us helping them. I was referring to us not doing to them what the russians have historically done to their satellites.

In relative terms (not absolute) to our military capabilities we are altruistic and peaceful.

err... no: Tony Blair was making speeches pertaining to the removal of Saddam Hussein as far back as 1999, so to say they did it 'for us' is pretty idiotic, and does tend to be the kind inanity endlessly repeated by idiots.

There are also 4 conditions a ruler can meet that call into question the right to state sovereignty:
1. Invading a neighbouring country
2. Violating the Genocide convention
3. Harbouring Terrorists
4. Violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty

Saddam Hussein violated each one of these rules multiple times, and the US had been supplying the no-fly zone that prevented the renewal of Kurdish genocide for longer than a decade. So again, to refer to that war as 'illegal' is another idiocy. Whether you think it was the right move or not is a different question, but the US has had every right to take issue with the Saddam Hussein regime, as did a lot of the rest of the world also.

The man was building palaces and offering large bounties to the families of palestinian suicide bombers while his citizens were starving to death in far greater numbers than were killed throughout the war and occupation, as a result of perfectly justified sanctions. Why is the blood of those people not on the consciences of those who did not want to intervene just as much as the blood of those killed during the war is on those who did?

[zoom17]

Obama is one of the weakest president ever.

[East_Stone_Ya]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1743538_10152051903062897_1110156234_n.jpg

[Andrei89]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1743538_10152051903062897_1110156234_n.jpg


This.

[Dresta]

No, that is a complete non sequitur and i would question its accuracy as well.

What does the number of countries invaded by the US have to do with this individual instance? Nothing, they are unique circumstances, with particulars related to those circumstances needed to be taken into account. If Russia had invaded Britain do you think it would be a valid assertion to go 'but the US invaded lots of countries too!!!' - no it would be irrelevant.

[East_Stone_Ya]

if anyone is interested how russian media sees this conflict then check the link below

http://rt.com/

[christian1923]

Didn't US and UK sign a deal that would obligate us to help Ukraine since we made them give up some weapons.

[tomtucker]

list those 22, please

[gts]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/5298314/data/ukraine-russia-data.png

[gts]

list those 22, please

Here's a list of 22 US military actions in the last 20 years that people use when making that statement..

Obviously not all these are an invasion or would be classified as such but I'm sure the idiots will think they should be



HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army.

[CeltsGarlic]

Damn Ukraine has quite an Army.. Wow

[Dresta]

Here's a list of US military actions in the last 20 years that people use when making that statement..

Obviously not all these are an invasion or would be classified as such but I'm sure the idiots will think they should be

HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army.


So very few actual 'invasions' then. Certainly nothing close to 22.

[LoPro4u2c]

Russia ain't playing around no more.



Russia test-fires Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, report says
Published March 04, 2014FoxNews.com
DEVELOPING: Russia said it successfully test-fired an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Tuesday, according to a Reuters report.

The Strategic Rocket Forces launched an RS-12M Topol missile from a region near the Caspian Sea, successfully hitting its target in Kazakhstan, state-run news agency RIA reported, citing Igor Yegorov, a Defense Ministry spokesman.

Reuters contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/04/russia-test-fires-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-report-says/

[MavsSuperFan]

Putin is kind of a badass. He is like the teddy roosevelt of russia.

[ZenMaster]

No, that is a complete non sequitur and i would question its accuracy as well.

What does the number of countries invaded by the US have to do with this individual instance? Nothing, they are unique circumstances, with particulars related to those circumstances needed to be taken into account. If Russia had invaded Britain do you think it would be a valid assertion to go 'but the US invaded lots of countries too!!!' - no it would be irrelevant.

Russia isn't invading a country far away from home for made up reasons like WMD's, no they're taking back what was their own until some 60 years ago.
They gave it away and the USSR later desolved, it's natural that given what's happened in the last few months that they want it back.

Borders have moved all throughout history, there's no reason to think that these exact borders we have now are the ones never to be moved again.

[zoom17]

Russia isn't invading a country far away from home for made up reasons like WMD's, no they're taking back what was their own until some 60 years ago.
They gave it away and the USSR later desolved, it's natural that given what's happened in the last few months that they want it back.

Borders have moved all throughout history, there's no reason to think that these exact borders we have now are the ones never to be moved again.

:applause:

[Lakers Legend#32]

The Republicans are rooting for Putin.

[zoom17]

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/52b3614beab8ea17332deb13-1200-/bb2obm3iyaaei_v.jpg

[Choke]

So very few actual 'invasions' then. Certainly nothing close to 22.
But being done by Russia, it would have been interpreted as huge international incidents.

[Nick Young]

The party America is sponsoring, the 'peaceful democracy loving protesters' you keep hearing about are lead and primarly made up of members of Ukraine's nazi party Svoboda. They also have members of nazi parties from all over Europe joining them.


Putin is fighting vs Nazis taking over Ukraine and stopped USA from invading Syria. There's a reason that Putin has been nominated for the upcoming Nobel Peace Prize.

Oh yeah, USA has given Svboda over $5 billion in funding. Are you happy that your tax payer dollars are going in to funding a Nazi coup?

[Dresta]

But being done by Russia, it would have been interpreted as huge international incidents.
err.. no it wouldn't. The Russians do all kinds of shit internationally, and i can't see many people caring if they drone killed some terrorists.

They carried out an assassination, in London, using Polonium. You can't get much more 'don't **** with us because we'll do whatever we want' than that.

[JerryWest]

Let Russia do whatever the f*ck they want, US needs to back off.

[Theoo]

if i was there i well steal a tanks and shot putin with a bombs

[senelcoolidge]

George Soros.

[32jazz]

In terms of world leaders, Putin is winning.

Obama a straight punk, sheeeit it sucks when other people arent scared of the US president. Bush sucked but atleast other countries were afraid of him.


Is that why the Russians invaded Georgia,without any retaliation, under GW Bush?

The Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956 & that weak ass General Dwight Eisenhower did nothing. :rolleyes: We all know how weak Eisenhower was.

War/threats of war isn't a junior high school fight. You should volunteer to go to the front lines to defend the Crimea.:rolleyes:

[East_Stone_Ya]

i wonder why Russian media hasn't brought up the Stepan Bandera worshipping in western parts of Ukraine

[gts]

http://i62.tinypic.com/2n04fbc.jpg

[East_Stone_Ya]

U.S state of department released yesterday 10 False Claims About Ukraine

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm


[QUOTE]1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is

[CeltsGarlic]

Do us.gov often make releases like this?

Looks very unprofessional.

[KevinNYC]

Do us.gov often make releases like this?

Looks very unprofessional.
In what way?

[LoPro4u2c]

Do us.gov often make releases like this?

Looks very unprofessional.

It's called propaganda.

[ace23]

Can someone briefly summarize what the **** is going on? Keep seeing people post about this shit online.

[MavsSuperFan]

Can someone briefly summarize what the **** is going on? Keep seeing people post about this shit online.
Throughout history Russia has been the dominant power in that region.

At various points the territory that is currently ukraine was under the direct control of russia. During the russian empire and during the soviet empire.

Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine to administer when they were all controlled by moscow. Previously Russians had controlled it, but since Ukraine and Russia were both part of the soviet union (which obviously russia dominated) it made since to give the control of Crimea to the region it was physically attached to.

Soviet Union Collapsed. Ukraine became independent, and briefly had the 3rd most nuclear missiles on earth, behind russia and the USA. (the Soviets had based a lot of their missiles in ukraine)

The Ukrainians agreed to transfer the nukes to russia, for guarantees that russia would respect their sovereignty and also that NATO would come to their aid. Also the Russians would maintain their military bases in crimea including the base for their black sea fleet.

77% of ukraine is ethnically Ukrainian. 17% is ethnically Russian. Crimea is 60% Russian ethnically and Eastern Ukraine has a high population of ethnic russians. Ethnic russians would like to rejoin with russia.

Ukrainians want closer ties to the west and greater independence from russia. Russia does not like this. A couple of years ago Russia refused to sell gas and oil to ukraine at cheap prices and caused an energy crisis in ukraine. Ukrainians got the message and elected the pro Russian president Yanukovych. He turned out to be highly corrupt. Supposedly he stole as much as 70 billion dollars from their treasury. Also he ordered the shooting of demonstrators. He fled to Russia, when he felt he was losing power and asked russia to send a military force to ukraine. Russia using the excuse that yanukovych is democratically elected is supporting his legitimacy

[ace23]

Read the words, don't really understand.

Thanks though.

[Nick Young]

Dem American sponsored Neo-Nazis doe:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[KevinNYC]

For a good recent history of why the protests begun you can check this out (http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/?insrc=hpss). It also has the added benefit of showing what a propaganda-spewing fool, Nick Young is. Inside the Ukraine and Russia, the party line was the protestors were too gay and too Jewish. For the outside world the party line is the protestors were all Nazis.[QUOTE]From Moscow to London to New York, the Ukrainian revolution has been seen through a haze of propaganda. Russian leaders and the Russian press have insisted that Ukrainian protesters were right-wing extremists and then that their victory was a coup. Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, used the same clich

[Nick Young]

For a good recent history of why the protests begun you can check this out (http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/?insrc=hpss). It also has the added benefit of showing what a propaganda-spewing fool, Nick Young is.
LOL U think that article you posted isnt liberal hipster propaganda doe? Sheep!

I like how it tries to downplay the fact that 30% of the protesters are Neo-Nazis XD

[PejaNowitzki]

LOL U think that article you posted isnt liberal hipster propaganda doe? Sheep!

I like how it tries to downplay the fact that 30% of the protesters are Neo-Nazis XD



Which is bullshit. There are a variety of groups involved in the protests, the vast majority are average, everyday Ukrainians who are sick and tired of the corruption in their government and sick and tired of Russia constantly meddling in their affairs. The whole "extremist" angle is overblown propaganda courtesy of the Russians. Jewish groups in Ukraine basically wrote a long letter to Putin stating that they feel a hell of a lot safer where they are then in Russia where anti-semitism is practically a way of life.



The biggest confusion is that a lot of the Ukrainian Nationalist groups are about Ukrainian independence and cutting ties with the Soviet past then they are about Jew-bashing or anything of that sort. It's just a common bullshit way for Russia to demonize these protests because they are incredibly scared of Ukraine joining the EU and moving away from their sphere of influence.


Without Ukraine, there really is no Russian empire, Ukraine is an important source of food and they hold leverage over Russia with a multitude of Russian pipelines criss-crossing their country to deliver oil and natural gas to the rest of Europe.



Basically the Russians are acting real bitch-made and salty, throwing a fit because Ukraine wants to break up and Russia can't deal, so they do stupid stuff like sinking one of their own ships to blockade Ukrainian Navy ships from leaving port.



http://images.smh.com.au/2014/03/07/5239253/1394151849631.jpg-620x349.jpg


http://images.smh.com.au/2014/03/07/5239259/1394151854748.jpg-620x349.jpg

[JohnFreeman]

Why did the title get changed?

[PejaNowitzki]

U.S state of department released yesterday 10 False Claims About Ukraine

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm



What is hilarious is that Russia media made a huge deal of the massive exodus of Ukrainians fleeing into Russia for safety, crossing the southern border to get away from "extremists." They even had video too, it was very convincing, cars backed up for a few miles, an incredibly busy border crossing..................the problem? The Polish flag and Polish insiginia's all over the place, indicating that this was the border crossing from Ukraine INTO Poland, not Russia.



Then you had Russia media release photos of "right-wing extremists" that had traveled all the way from Western Ukraine and were running around the streets of Crimea armed to the teeth. The problem? The buses that these "extremists" apparently rode from "Western Ukraine" had Crimean license plates and the so-called "extremists" were running around wielding standard issue Russian military weapons. In spite of this show of force, not a single round was fired for some reason.




Make no mistake about it, Russia is pulling out all the stops, endless propaganda to justify illegally violating the sovereignty of Ukraine, especially since they had signed multiple treaties and promised to avoid doing exactly that.

[PejaNowitzki]

If Russia is simply allowed to seize control of Crimea and potentially cross further into Ukraine, what this does is put an end to nuclear non-proliferation efforts.


Ukraine gave up their many nuclear weapons due to the promise of Russia respecting their borders and not getting involved in their internal affairs. The U.S. and Britain also signed on to support this agreement.


With what has happened now, no country in their right mind will turn away from nuclear weapons if they can get them. What are you going to tell them that they won't respond to by saying "What, so we can end up like Ukraine? **** you!"

[JohnFreeman]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=118_1394165011

[PejaNowitzki]

No, that is a complete non sequitur and i would question its accuracy as well.

What does the number of countries invaded by the US have to do with this individual instance? Nothing, they are unique circumstances, with particulars related to those circumstances needed to be taken into account. If Russia had invaded Britain do you think it would be a valid assertion to go 'but the US invaded lots of countries too!!!' - no it would be irrelevant.


This. The U.S. goes into countries and then ****ing leaves. In some cases, such as after WW2, they help rebuild countries after a war even though realistically they don't deserve it.


Russia goes into countries and ****ing tries to stay forever. They invaded Latvia in the 40's on the basis of "protecting Russian speaking individuals", they invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and many more. Then they basically set up shop in those countries and took full control over all operations and activity within those respective nations.


Trying to somehow equate the two is ****ing potato.

[PejaNowitzki]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=118_1394165011



"Everyone is so serious here." :oldlol: :oldlol:

[PejaNowitzki]

This is going to cause World War III.

History repeats itself.



Not really. Worst case scenario, Russia takes over Crimea, Ukraine goes on with their new government, holds elections in a few months, ends up joining the EU and everything pretty much stays the same. I don't see anyone here wanting an armed conflict of any kind, not the Russians, not the Americans, this is just sabre-rattling by Russia, along with the war games being conducted on the borders of Poland and Lithuania as well as the troop movements near Finland. Russia wants to feel like they matter, this will all die down shortly.

[fiddy]

Not really. Worst case scenario, Russia takes over Crimea, Ukraine goes on with their new government, holds elections in a few months, ends up joining the EU and everything pretty much stays the same. I don't see anyone here wanting an armed conflict of any kind, not the Russians, not the Americans, this is just sabre-rattling by Russia, along with the war games being conducted on the borders of Poland and Lithuania as well as the troop movements near Finland. Russia wants to feel like they matter, this will all die down shortly.
dafuq

[PejaNowitzki]

dafuq


Missing the old Soviet days when they still ran shit in that region and countries like Lithuania and Poland weren't members of NATO.

Seeing some of the raggedy Russian soldiers walking around in mismatched pants, with holes in their uniforms is kind of lulzy. Putin isn't really looking for a fight, he's just mad-dogging, see if anyone gets scared off. The reality is that China is the biggest threat to the U.S. right now on the global stage, Russia is saber-rattling and trying to draw attention to themselves but they seem to think more highly of themselves than anyone else does.

[PejaNowitzki]

2. cyrillic is bulgarian




:biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[PejaNowitzki]

Is it really necessary to add Poland and Ukraine to Nato.



Poland has been a part of NATO for about 15 years now. As far as Ukraine, the people have absolutely no interest in joining NATO, however a majority do consistently support joining the European Union.

[Godzuki]

Can someone explain to me why the EU and US amongst others are so against Crimea becoming a part of Russia when that population is mostly Russian?

Otherwise they're justifying blood spilled and a civil war considering how at odds the Russians in Ukraine are with the other Ukrainians.

I get the assets and production part of it being handed over for free to Russia not being okay, but if its really about peace and less lives lost, i'd think allowing that is whats in the best interest

I also think Putin has every right to worry about his border, evil KGB agent or not.

I mean i generally stick up for the West since a lot of foreign conspiracy people are idiots that stick up for some countries but in this case i'm just not getting it, or really siding with 'us'...i'd just like a logical answer to the main reason why the West is so against a split. maybe i'm missing something obvious but tell me :confusedshrug:

[MavsSuperFan]

Can someone explain to me why the EU and US amongst others are so against Crimea becoming a part of Russia when that population is mostly Russian?

Otherwise they're justifying blood spilled and a civil war considering how at odds the Russians in Ukraine are with the other Ukrainians.

I get the assets and production part of it being handed over for free to Russia not being okay, but if its really about peace and less lives lost, i'd think allowing that is whats in the best interest

I also think Putin has every right to worry about his border, evil KGB agent or not.

I mean i generally stick up for the West since a lot of foreign conspiracy people are idiots that stick up for some countries but in this case i'm just not getting it, or really siding with 'us'...i'd just like a logical answer to the main reason why the West is so against a split. maybe i'm missing something obvious but tell me :confusedshrug:

Because a large percentage of those russians moved there under stalin's time.

Moving a ethnicity to an area doesnt entitle the country from which that ethnicity originates to that area.

Further the arguement that a nation has a right to militarily intervene for the interests of people of the ethnicity of that nation, is the exact same argument hitler used.

Eg. invading poland and czechoslovakia to protect the german minorities there. It was wrong when hitler invaded the sudetenland, its wrong when russia tries to annex parts of other countries that contain russians.

Edit: I rarely use a comparison to hitler, but when a world leader of a major military power, justifies military intervention to protect the people of his ethnicity, well thats almost exact what hitler did.

[ZenMaster]

Because a large percentage of those russians moved there under stalin's time.

Moving a ethnicity to an area doesnt entitle the country from which that ethnicity originates to that area.

Further the arguement that a nation has a right to militarily intervene for the interests of people of the ethnicity of that nation, is the exact same argument hitler used.

Eg. invading poland and czechoslovakia to protect the german minorities there. It was wrong when hitler invaded the sudetenland, its wrong when russia tries to annex parts of other countries that contain russians.

Hillary Clinton compares Putin to Hitler, 24 hours later you hear the same on here.. Propaganda works.

A piece of advice: Don't listen to your news stations when it concerns what the US wants to do thousands of miles from home, the coverage will always be coloured as to what the government wants you to hear.
You probably heard 90% more about Syria in the daily news when US was getting ready to go to war there than you do now, there's a reason for that.

Hitler wanted to take all of Europe, Putin has shown nothing that he wants the same. He couldn't even if he wanted to.

I my history class we weren't taught that Hitler went into Poland while arguing about Germans being there, instead we where told that he used the ever popular false flag attack to initate his offensive.

[ZenMaster]

Can someone explain to me why the EU and US amongst others are so against Crimea becoming a part of Russia when that population is mostly Russian?

Otherwise they're justifying blood spilled and a civil war considering how at odds the Russians in Ukraine are with the other Ukrainians.

I get the assets and production part of it being handed over for free to Russia not being okay, but if its really about peace and less lives lost, i'd think allowing that is whats in the best interest

I also think Putin has every right to worry about his border, evil KGB agent or not.

I mean i generally stick up for the West since a lot of foreign conspiracy people are idiots that stick up for some countries but in this case i'm just not getting it, or really siding with 'us'...i'd just like a logical answer to the main reason why the West is so against a split. maybe i'm missing something obvious but tell me :confusedshrug:

It's the ridiculous game they're running. When Yanukovych was in and supporting Ukraine to join the EU it was all good, then after deciding not to instead siding with Putin he was a criminal who needed to be removed immediately, didn't matter if they needed nazis to do it.

Whatever fits the agenda.

[brantonli]

Hitler wanted to take all of Europe, Putin has shown nothing that he wants the same. He couldn't even if he wanted to.

I my history class we weren't taught that Hitler went into Poland while arguing about Germans being there, instead we where told that he used the ever popular false flag attack to initate his offensive.


If we rewind 6 months, even before Sochi, and asked everybody the question, 'Will Russia invade Ukraine and take over Crimea?' Most people would've answered 'What's Ukraine?', and the smarter ones would've answered 'No way, no modern country is going to invade another one, especially one on the brink of joining the EU'.


My point is that after this invasion of Crimea, Putin is utterly unpredictable. 6 months ago, we could easily have said 'there's no way Putin can invade, he couldn't even if he tried'. Well he has, and he's shown the West is divided over how to oppose him. The West should try to contain him as much as possible.

Also, Hitler did use the pretense of helping oppressed Germans for his invasion of Czechoslovakia, here's a part of his speech:


Since 5.45 A.M. we have answered the call of the Sudeten Germans to assure their safety, and from now on terror will be terror. The oppressing regime in Prague must be stopped! Whoever fight with bombs will be fought with bombs. Whoever departs from the rules of humane warfare can only expect that we shall do the same. I will continue this struggle, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_speech_on_Invasion_of_Czechoslov akia.PNG

[fiddy]

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

It is based on the Early Cyrillic, which was developed in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9th century AD at the Preslav Literary School
per wikipedia

[ZenMaster]

If we rewind 6 months, even before Sochi, and asked everybody the question, 'Will Russia invade Ukraine and take over Crimea?' Most people would've answered 'What's Ukraine?', and the smarter ones would've answered 'No way, no modern country is going to invade another one, especially one on the brink of joining the EU'.


My point is that after this invasion of Crimea, Putin is utterly unpredictable. 6 months ago, we could easily have said 'there's no way Putin can invade, he couldn't even if he tried'. Well he has, and he's shown the West is divided over how to oppose him. The West should try to contain him as much as possible.

Also, Hitler did use the pretense of helping oppressed Germans for his invasion of Czechoslovakia, here's a part of his speech:



http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_speech_on_Invasion_of_Czechoslov akia.PNG

Just hold your horses. Invading Ukraine? The guy is taking part of Ukraine, a part that was given to them, a part that contains a big part of the Russain navy and their access to half the world seas come from their Crimea bases.
The Crimea navy bases and where they're located are very important to Russia, on a large scale it's very natural given what's happened the last month that he takes that Island back.
Borders have moved throughout history, there's nothing special about the ones we have now that they're never to be moved again.

Thanks for the info on WW2, I learned something new or something that I'd forgotten, but I'm sure we were taught that he initated attacks through a false flag, that plays a part as well.

[Godzuki]

Because a large percentage of those russians moved there under stalin's time.

Moving a ethnicity to an area doesnt entitle the country from which that ethnicity originates to that area.

Further the arguement that a nation has a right to militarily intervene for the interests of people of the ethnicity of that nation, is the exact same argument hitler used.

Eg. invading poland and czechoslovakia to protect the german minorities there. It was wrong when hitler invaded the sudetenland, its wrong when russia tries to annex parts of other countries that contain russians.

Edit: I rarely use a comparison to hitler, but when a world leader of a major military power, justifies military intervention to protect the people of his ethnicity, well thats almost exact what hitler did.


we should deal with the present time and not history. Basically the situation now is you have UkranianRussians at the throats of nonRussianUkrainians and vice versa. What imakes the most sense for this situation? Split them up to avoid confrontation and maybe a civil war right?

and the thing that i don't get about our(west) stance is wouldn't it benefit us more to have a united Ukraine that hates Russia's guts next to them instead of a half Ukraine fighting the other half where Russia has more influence?

there are just so many things people can use history for to justify a dumb situation today that doesn't have to be dumb. the world changes.

[Dresta]

Nationalism is the cause of war since 1914.
I think you mean state power bro. Nationalism was just a tool to get people to sign up for WW1; state leaders wanting to flex their muscles and expand their empires was the cause of that war.

Then the German socialist expansion of state power and Versailles treaty resulting from WW1 effectively handed Hitler complete control of the German state on a platter. This past century has been a century of states making war, regardless of the sentiments of their populaces.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

It's the ridiculous game they're running. When Yanukovych was in and supporting Ukraine to join the EU it was all good, then after deciding not to instead siding with Putin he was a criminal who needed to be removed immediately, didn't matter if they needed nazis to do it.

Whatever fits the agenda.
:applause: :applause:

[Dresta]

Putin is a criminal though: former KGB and look at those eyes - he's clearly chucked a few babies off the roofs of buildings back in the day.

[zoom17]

Seems like this is getting over shadowed by The ISIS problem in Iraq and Syria.

[MadeFromDust]

http://i62.tinypic.com/2n04fbc.jpg
LMAO :roll: :oldlol:

[Rodmantheman]

Putin is a criminal though: former KGB and look at those eyes - he's clearly chucked a few babies off the roofs of buildings back in the day.

:biggums: