By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What does Putin want with Ukraine

 

What is his end state

Annex Ukraine As a whole 337 40.60%
 
Annex Crimea 286 34.46%
 
Defend Russian People Fro... 184 22.17%
 
Total:807
allblue on 08 March 2014
PDF said:
allblue said:


Exactly, no convenient answer when someone presents you with a legitimate question. 

Or rather impossible to give an honset answer without exposing your own hypocrisy. Such. Hypocrisy.

I answered your question.  While it may be legitimate its not a very good question and easily answered.

It is no better than a child asking his parents why they get to stay up later than him.  The parent my by a hypocrit but we all know the answer why, because the parent is in charge.  The child has no power over the parent, they to not have the ability to force equality. The parent does what it believes is best, even if its wrong.

"Why does the US get to police the world when other states cannot"  - Because it can. 

I deal with this worldist point of view all the time in College.  Where people will try to argue things based on "fairness" its idealistic an stupid.  The world simply doesn't work that way.  I wish it did.

Dont get me confused for someone who is defending my countries policies and choices.  I am simply explaining why it is the way it is.

You missed the point of my posts entirely, I wasn't really asking for an answer, it was rather rhetorical and intended to prove that all sides in this conflicts are being hypocritical. I don't support russia nor USA. I don't dislike america either, although I certainly disagree with their government's policies. 

Oh and don't get me started on my own government. 



Intel core i7 930 OC @ 4.0 ghz

XFX Double dissipation Radeon HD 7950 356 bit 3gb GDDR5 OC @ 1150 MHz core + 1575 x 4 memory

Triple channel DDR 3 12gb RAM 1600 MHz

Around the Network
allblue on 08 March 2014
PDF said:
allblue said:


Exactly, no convenient answer when someone presents you with a legitimate question. 

Or rather impossible to give an honset answer without exposing your own hypocrisy. Such. Hypocrisy.

I answered your question.  While it may be legitimate its not a very good question and easily answered.

It is no better than a child asking his parents why they get to stay up later than him.  The parent my by a hypocrit but we all know the answer why, because the parent is in charge.  The child has no power over the parent, they to not have the ability to force equality. The parent does what it believes is best, even if its wrong.

"Why does the US get to police the world when other states cannot"  - Because it can. 

I deal with this worldist point of view all the time in College.  Where people will try to argue things based on "fairness" its idealistic an stupid.  The world simply doesn't work that way.  I wish it did.

Dont get me confused for someone who is defending my countries policies and choices.  I am simply explaining why it is the way it is.


There is this difference between you and the other poster. You have no problem presenting the truth as it is, the other seems to masquerade around in his mask of morality while not willing to confess his own hypocrisy.

When you take a side in politics, you got to fact check before lecturing someone else on violating this and that. 



Intel core i7 930 OC @ 4.0 ghz

XFX Double dissipation Radeon HD 7950 356 bit 3gb GDDR5 OC @ 1150 MHz core + 1575 x 4 memory

Triple channel DDR 3 12gb RAM 1600 MHz

allblue on 08 March 2014
PDF said:
allblue said:

You missed the point of my posts entirely, I wasn't really asking for an answer, it was rather rhetorical and intended to prove that all sides in this conflicts are being hypocritical. I don't support russia nor USA. I don't dislike america either, although I certainly disagree with their government's policies. 

Well thats wierd then.  You critisized kowenicki for not answering a rhetorical question?


No, I critisized Kowenicki for being a hypocrite, and being quite blatant at it. 

Especially as he is BRITISH and have this voluntary love for defending Washington's interest. 



Intel core i7 930 OC @ 4.0 ghz

XFX Double dissipation Radeon HD 7950 356 bit 3gb GDDR5 OC @ 1150 MHz core + 1575 x 4 memory

Triple channel DDR 3 12gb RAM 1600 MHz

Norris2k on 08 March 2014
kowenicki said:
allblue said:
kowenicki said:
allblue said:
kowenicki said:

Sorry, whats your problem?  I was asking him if he was born in the UK, since his stance was odd for someone that was.  If you agree with him them I'd suggest your stance is also odd if you are English.  Before you get on your high horse... odd doesnt mean wrong, it means odd, out of the ordinary.  The majority of English residents would prefer to allign themselves with Nato over Putin.

Unfortunately HE was banned for his abusive and mindless post, so he couldnt respond.


Although, I'm pretty damn close to understanding your character, I'm still interested hearing an answer straight from you, so I'll ask. What makes it ok for the US to go around intervening, taking down and installing puppet governments, invade a whole country on a false premise of nuclear weapons but not when another country does it in the interest of protecting their own backyard and millions of ethnic people in that country?

Do you think imperialism is justified?

If there's no reply I'll just assume that there's no convenient answer.


You arent remotely close to knowing anythign about me.  Your posts are arrogant, divisive and motivated by an all too apparent agenda. I know what i am, what i beleve in and what i hold true...

I have no political motivation these days, I dont rate a single politician alive today.  I despise the big politics "we know best" of current times, the EU being the best example of all that is bad.  And I certainly have no religious motivation... 

How about you?

 

 

How about me? I despise those who are blindly hypocritical and at times dodges questions when they are being confronted. I'm confronting you because you are a big supporter of washington and their foreign policies (even domestic at times like the snowden case).

I'm asking again, I hope you don't keep dodging my question, why is it ok for the US government to police the world in their interest but not some other countries? 

Now who is dodgning questions?

Why would I converse with someone that despises me?  You can confront me all you want pal, doesnt mean I need to answer you or care what you think. Who the hell do you think you are? lol.

 

I don't know nor I despise any of you 2 guys, but he makes a point with his question.

For me it's not just "what gives the right to USA only", but isn't USA policing the world in their interest without accountability, retaliation and remorse giving the right to any other power to do the same ?

More than anything else, a lot more than Irak's war, the Kosovo war opened a Pandora's Box we closed after world war 2 : the right for a foreign power to change by war the frontier of a country to protect a population.



Nem on 08 March 2014

 

NeoRatt said:
Nem said:
NeoRatt said:
Russia is simply looking to secure access to the only warm water naval base they have to access western Europe, the Mediterranean, and Red Sea.

If the new Ukraine government was smart they would offer Russia a lease extension from 2047 to 2147 to keep the naval base there and guarantee Russian culture (language and other cultural norms) is supported by the government in exchange for a permanent withdrawl of occupying troops from the peninsula.

Right now the west seems to think that Russia has to lose. They have to look for a way for Russia to claim a victory.


I dont know if you understand this, but Russia has no claim to it. If they want it, there is only two possible ways the international community will accept it.

1. Ukraine sells it to them for a price.

2. Democratic referendum.

 

I worry that this will escalate into something worse. It might be inevitable that democracy and comunism clash in war until one goes. China is beeing very clever staying out of this. I would rather comunism issues be solved with internal disputes. Thats not gonna happen until the oil/gas runs out though.

Zimmerman's handywork troubling us to this day. What a devious character.

USA had no reason to enter Iraq.  But, they did because of oil...

Western nations had no reason to enter Libya...  But they did because of oil...

Western nations have watched and for the most part ignored stuff in Cambodia, Congo, Somalia, Central Republic of Africa, etc...  Where no one cares if the people die or are repressed.

Russia has just as much rights to look after their interests as western nations think they do.


Two wrongs dont make a right. You make it sound like those countries were annexed by any of the intervening nations. Very different.. 



Around the Network
Norris2k on 08 March 2014
Nem said:

 

NeoRatt said:
Nem said:
NeoRatt said:
Russia is simply looking to secure access to the only warm water naval base they have to access western Europe, the Mediterranean, and Red Sea.

If the new Ukraine government was smart they would offer Russia a lease extension from 2047 to 2147 to keep the naval base there and guarantee Russian culture (language and other cultural norms) is supported by the government in exchange for a permanent withdrawl of occupying troops from the peninsula.

Right now the west seems to think that Russia has to lose. They have to look for a way for Russia to claim a victory.


I dont know if you understand this, but Russia has no claim to it. If they want it, there is only two possible ways the international community will accept it.

1. Ukraine sells it to them for a price.

2. Democratic referendum.

 

I worry that this will escalate into something worse. It might be inevitable that democracy and comunism clash in war until one goes. China is beeing very clever staying out of this. I would rather comunism issues be solved with internal disputes. Thats not gonna happen until the oil/gas runs out though.

Zimmerman's handywork troubling us to this day. What a devious character.

USA had no reason to enter Iraq.  But, they did because of oil...

Western nations had no reason to enter Libya...  But they did because of oil...

Western nations have watched and for the most part ignored stuff in Cambodia, Congo, Somalia, Central Republic of Africa, etc...  Where no one cares if the people die or are repressed.

Russia has just as much rights to look after their interests as western nations think they do.


Two wrongs dont make a right. You make it sound like those countries were annexed by any of the intervening nations. Very different.. 

Two wrongs, lot of wrongs make a precedent. And legally speaking, a precedent  is very similar to a law or right.

For good or not, what USA did in Irak is : make war to Irak, search dead or alive all the government, make stay its army for years, fought years of guerilla and financed and influenced the new government. So how does Russia sending a few thousand military guys for just a week, without kills or resistance in an area where lot of people are russians could possibly qualify more than that as an annexion ?



Nem on 08 March 2014
Norris2k said:
 

Two wrongs, lot of wrongs make a precedent. And legally speaking, a precedent  is very similar to a law or right.

For good or not, what USA did in Irak is : make war to Irak, search dead or alive all the government, make stay its army for years, fought years of guerilla and financed and influenced the new government. So how does Russia sending a few thousand military guys for just a week, without kills or resistance in an area where lot of people are russians could possibly qualify more than that as an annexion ?


I'm not defending what the US did in Iraq, but they did not annex the country.

What you are saying is that since the US occupied Iraq in suspect of posing a threat or other such pretence, its fair game everywhere. Well, magificent! I think its time Great Britain reclaims all their past provinces. Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, etc. Lets wave those nukes and reclaim what was once theirs!

Your line of thought is about as destructive as it gets.

Again, the US did not annex anything. The US does not own Iraq and for all intents and purposes they deposed a tyrant that was opressing his people (or at least a segment of them).



allblue on 08 March 2014
Nem said:

 Iraq and for all intents and purposes they deposed a tyrant that was opressing his people (or at least a segment of them).


You believe that US went to Iraq solely for that purpose?



Intel core i7 930 OC @ 4.0 ghz

XFX Double dissipation Radeon HD 7950 356 bit 3gb GDDR5 OC @ 1150 MHz core + 1575 x 4 memory

Triple channel DDR 3 12gb RAM 1600 MHz

allblue on 08 March 2014
kowenicki said:

 

I dont have a love for washington... I think Obama is terrible and I think the whole US system is a bit of a mess.

I do however love the USA as a place to be, almost as much as I love the UK. 

Is that a problem for you? 

So in summary of course I am inclined toward the west....  and?  so?   I'd say thats natural seeing as it shaped who I am and provided me and my family with a safe place to live and thrive.

Simple enough for you?

In a even simpler term, does it translate to, "I don't have a problem with whatever US is doing or whatever crimes my own government is going along with as long as the geopolitical supremacy remains in the west but I can't stand it when some other powers rises to challenge us?"

I guess it must have been such a disappointment when that warmonger Cameron didn't get his ticket to syria. Quite a sight to see when the parliament at least showed some sense. 



Intel core i7 930 OC @ 4.0 ghz

XFX Double dissipation Radeon HD 7950 356 bit 3gb GDDR5 OC @ 1150 MHz core + 1575 x 4 memory

Triple channel DDR 3 12gb RAM 1600 MHz

Nem on 08 March 2014
allblue said:
Nem said:

 Iraq and for all intents and purposes they deposed a tyrant that was opressing his people (or at least a segment of them).


You believe that US went to Iraq solely for that purpose?


No i dont. I already said i didnt but that happened aswell. Call it colateral if you want.