Page 19 of 45 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 443

Thread: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

  1. #181
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    What is hilarious is your declaring 22,000 foreign troops and weapons irrelevant - and then calling it democracy.

    There are nearly 3,000,000 people in Crimea. 95% did not engage in "jubilation." But you declare the 5% who do and that the conquering army declaring they won the election equates to democracy is so absurd no words can describe it.
    They didn't conquer anything, they didn't kill people and destroy infrastructure like the US does when they invade, think Iraq, that was an invasion. Crimea was Russian police work to secure their assets and interests and now the residents wish to join Russia, all quite smooth, really.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  2. #182
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,850

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Any particular reason why you hate the people Crimea? Some ancient grievance of something they did to your ancestors or something?
    Who hates Crimeans? Crimeans have made a choice. With choices come consequences. Surely you don't expect Ukraine to continue to make provisions for Crimea do you? However, they do have a history of being a bit fickle. Crimea voted to be independent of the Soviet Union (December 1991) and Ukraine (May 1992 -- rescinded then reconsidered 1994). So once again they have decided to switch. Let them look to their new leader for all their provisions.

  3. #183
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,992

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    They didn't conquer anything, they didn't kill people and destroy infrastructure like the US does when they invade, think Iraq, that was an invasion. Crimea was Russian police work to secure their assets and interests and now the residents wish to join Russia, all quite smooth, really.
    According to that logic Germany never invaded Austria or Czechoslovakia. Heck They didn't even really invade Denmark either!
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  4. #184
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    According to that logic Germany never invaded Austria or Czechoslovakia. Heck They didn't even really invade Denmark either!
    Had the west intervened and supported violent overthrow of elected governments in those countries and then "recognised" anti-German governments in their place??
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #185
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    How many protests have their been against governments the US hasn't liked in the past...whatever...10? 20? 30? years. Let's explore this. Keep in mind that before facebook/twitter/instagram pictures in general were fewer, but let's still explore this. Might be fun.
    There have been plenty of protests against governments the US didn't like. Recall, there was even a coup that temporarily overthrew Hugo Chavez. The US rushed immediately to recognize the government, but was embarrassed when Chavez was reinstated. But in that case, you didn't see the Assistant Secretary of State out passing cookies to protesters. In this case the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States who is overseeing the affairs of Ukraine is passing out cookies to protesters. This is at the same time that the State Department is threatening the democratically elected government of Ukraine because the prime minister preferred the better offer that was made by Putin. And because the threat came from the State Department and Victoria Nuland is the Assistant Secretary of State that is overseeing the affairs of the Ukraine, it's very likely that she had a lot to do with the State Department issuing the threat. So her passing out cookies to the protesters is a sign of her displeasure. She is demonstrating that she is displeased with the decision of Yanukovych and that she is going to do something about it.

    The fact that you can't produce any other pictures of an Assistant Secretary of State passing out cookies to protesters is a sign the strength of US involvement in the installation of Yatsenyuk. If that was the usual thing that the Assistant Secretary of State did, then you could say it's no big deal. That's just what they do. But in this case it shows just how pissed off she was that Yanukovych made that decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    No, it's not. Saying Obama will be more interested in affairs in Sub-Saharan Africa because of his background doesn't mean Sub-Saharan Africa had anything to do with helping him get elected. It's just meaningless conjecture until there's proof.
    Yes it is. Having someone in there who will do as the US wants after State Department threatened sanctions against Yanukovych for rejecting the deal by the EU, when seen together with the other things I have mentioned, does indeed support the notion that the US played a substantial role in the installation of Yatsenyuk as prime minister.


    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Okay, again: that's what diplomats do. They appear with everyone. That's one of the the major points of them being there. Why not appear with the actual Ambassador to Ukraine, if that was so important? It's very simple to understand, unless of course you don't want to understand and/or you want to deceive others about what's really going on.
    Yeah and they go out passing out cookies to protesters after the democratically elected prime minister makes a decision that they don't like. They threaten sanctions against a country after the democratically elected prime minister makes a decision they don't like. They get on the phone and say f*ck whoever is in their way after the democratically elected prime minister of a country says something they don't like. They get on the phone and discuss who to put in power after they get rid of the democratically elected prime minister of a country says something they don't like. They pose for pictures, to let it be known these are the people who they want in power, after they get rid of the democratically elected prime minister of a country does something they don't like.

    Yep, it's simple to understand. Nothing hard about it. Of course someone who was put on here to spin propaganda would never agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Ahhhhh, I see. So important conversations shouldn't take place after important declarations. What's the cooling off period? When can these conversations take place without people on the internet using it as evidence of a conspiracy? Is there a cooling off period? A statute of limitations?
    There is no statute of limitations for the truth. If the US actually did it, as long as there is evidence to support it, it should be put forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    People can believe anything they want, but that's certainly not "strong". "A US diplomat took a picture with a senior Ukranian politician, then said he was going to take power after serious unrest occurred, and then he did". It'd be strong evidence if diplomats never took pictures with senior politicians, and never gave their opinions on who would take charge in changes of power but...since that's their job....they do that all the time. So it's not very strong. At all.
    It's strong evidence when taken in the context that the State Department threatened to impose sanctions on the Ukraine after it rejected to EU offer. It's strong evidence when taken in the context of Victoria Nuland passing out cookies to protesters against Yanukovych. It's strong evidence when taken in the context of her speaking on the phone about the need to have Yatsenyuk put in power. And over and above that, it's strong evidence when seen in the context of the fact that the US tries to overthrow the leaders of governments that they have disagreements with.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    We need to know about protests, and when. I'm waiting. Gimme some examples where you would've expected to see it.
    You need to learn some history if you can't find examples of people protesting in the streets of countries where the United States would rather have someone else in power.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    lol of course! You haven't? Are you just talking about things you have no idea about? lol
    And you know all about this issue. Do you work for Victoria Nuland? If you don't, how do you know for a fact that what I am saying is not true? Is it because you have been to a diplomatic social? LMAO!!! If you don't work for her you have know way of knowing for a fact that what I am putting forward is not true.

    Sorry Charlie! Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Of course I have. I don't speak about things I know nothing about. Why would I possibly do that, I'd just look like a complete idiot! I worked for the DAT.
    So you work for Victoria Nuland then. That's why you know all about this. Interesting. If you don't, and you don't speak about things you know nothing about, then why are you speaking on this? According to your logic, you are an idiot, because you can't say anything about anything you don't know for a fact.

    Sorry Charlie. Try again.
    Last edited by MildSteel; 03-17-14 at 10:03 AM.

  6. #186
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,248

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    How many people were killed in this so called invasion of Crimea?
    how many people were killed in the German invasion of Austria?
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  7. #187
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    how many people were killed in the German invasion of Austria?
    You're really comparing the two.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #188
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Basically, the only people that voted at all are the people that want to join Russia. Those that didn't stayed home. That's not a real vote.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/wo...ndum.html?_r=0
    "Citizens with misgivings about joining Mr. Putin’s Russian Federation, particularly Crimean Tatars, a Muslim Turkic people with a history of persecution by Russia, generally opted to stay home rather than participate in what they called a rigged vote."
    85% turnout of voters. Over 95% of those voting for unification with Russia.

  9. #189
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    There have been plenty of protests against governments the US didn't like. Recall, there was even a coup that temporarily overthrew Hugo Chavez. The US rushed immediately to recognize the government, but was embarrassed when Chavez was reinstated. But in that case, you didn't see the Assistant Secretary of State out passing cookies to protesters. In this case the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States who is overseeing the affairs of Ukraine is passing out cookies to protesters. This is at the same time that the State Department is threatening the democratically elected government of Ukraine because the prime minister preferred the better offer that was made by Putin. And because the threat came from the State Department and Victoria Nuland is the Assistant Secretary of State that is overseeing the affairs of the Ukraine, it's very likely that she had a lot to do with the State Department issuing the threat. So her passing out cookies to the protesters is a sign of her displeasure. She is demonstrating that she is displeased with the decision of Yanukovych and that she is going to do something about it.

    The fact that you can't produce any other pictures of an Assistant Secretary of State passing out cookies to protesters is a sign the strength of US involvement in the installation of Yatsenyuk. If that was the usual thing that the Assistant Secretary of State did, then you could say it's no big deal. That's just what they do. But in this case it shows just how pissed off she was that Yanukovych made that decision.



    Yes it is. Having someone in there who will do as the US wants after State Department threatened sanctions against Yanukovych for rejecting the deal by the EU, when seen together with the other things I have mentioned, does indeed support the notion that the US played a substantial role in the installation of Yatsenyuk as prime minister.




    Yeah and they go out passing out cookies to protesters after the democratically elected prime minister makes a decision that they don't like. They threaten sanctions against a country after the democratically elected prime minister makes a decision they don't like. They get on the phone and say f*ck whoever is in their way after the democratically elected prime minister of a country says something they don't like. They get on the phone and discuss who to put in power after they get rid of the democratically elected prime minister of a country says something they don't like. They pose for pictures, to let it be known these are the people who they want in power, after they get rid of the democratically elected prime minister of a country does something they don't like.

    Yep, it's simple to understand. Nothing hard about it. Of course someone who was put on here to spin propaganda would never agree.



    There is no statute of limitations for the truth. If the US actually did it, as long as there is evidence to support it, it should be put forward.



    It's strong evidence when taken in the context that the State Department threatened to impose sanctions on the Ukraine after it rejected to EU offer. It's strong evidence when taken in the context of Victoria Nuland passing out cookies to protesters against Yanukovych. It's strong evidence when taken in the context of her speaking on the phone about the need to have Yatsenyuk put in power. And over and above that, it's strong evidence when seen in the context of the fact that the US tries to overthrow the leaders of governments that they have disagreements with.



    You need to learn some history if you can't find examples of people protesting in the streets of countries where the United States would rather have someone else in power.



    And you know all about this issue. Do you work for Victoria Nuland? If you don't, how do you know for a fact that what I am saying is not true? Is it because you have been to a diplomatic social? LMAO!!! If you don't work for her you have know way of knowing for a fact that what I am putting forward is not true.

    Sorry Charlie! Try again.



    So you work for Victoria Nuland then. That's why you know all about this. Interesting. If you don't, and you don't speak about things you know nothing about, then why are you speaking on this? According to your logic, you are an idiot, because you can't say anything about anything you don't know for a fact.

    Sorry Charlie. Try again.
    Here are two links that will give even more clarity to what you have stated.

    Corporate Interests Behind Ukraine Putsch | Consortiumnews

    "As President of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Williams has access to Council cohort — David Kramer, President of Freedom House. Officially a non-governmental organization, it has been linked with overt and covert “democracy” efforts in places where the door isn’t open to American interests — a.k.a. U.S. corporations.

    Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy and National Democratic Institute helped fund and support the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” in 2004. Freedom House is funded directly by the U.S. Government, the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Department of State.

    David Kramer is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and, according to his Freedom House bio page, formerly a “Senior Fellow at the Project for the New American Century.”

    Nuland’s Role

    That puts Kramer and, by one degree of separation, Big Ag fixer Morgan Williams in the company of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan who, as coincidence would have it, is married to Victoria “F*ck the EU” Nuland, the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs."

    Consortiumnews | Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995

    "Exclusive: The U.S. mainstream news media is reaching a new professional low point as it covers the Ukraine crisis by brazenly touting Official Washington’s propaganda themes, blatantly ignoring contrary facts and leading the American public into another geopolitical blind alley, writes Robert Parry. "

  10. #190
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    re: Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpgrad08 View Post
    You cast a vote after the region was been invaded by Russian troops. That is voting at the point of a gun.
    That is a CON game. 16,000 Russian troops have been in the Crimea for decades, there was no invasion. Did anyone see ship loads of tanks docking in Crimean ports unloading tanks and other armored vehicles?

    We don't invade anyone without a butt load of heavy equipment- what makes you think Russia wouldn't as well?????

    Crimea has not been a part of the Ukraine for centuries, in 1955 it was attached as a, now pay attention, as a semi autonomous region.

    No cultural ties with the Ukraine

    They has their own Parliament

    Civilian population is almost 60% Russian

    General sense of unease over new Ukrainian government...

    95% seems high but if a majority of the other ethnic groups feel more secure with Russian than the new Ukrainian government I can see them staying home or voting to seek closer ties to Russia.

Page 19 of 45 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •