- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
How many people were killed in this so called invasion of Crimea?
"So-called"?? Can you really be that obtuse?
How many people were killed in this so called invasion of Crimea?
That's a hilarious explanation of this jubilation.
And calling what happened in Kiev is democratic?
Elections at the point of a gun??? Can you please provide evidence of someone threatening someone with a gun?
Well it looks like the people of Crimea has spoken. NINETY FIVE PERCENT voted to join Russia. WOW!!!
We'll see what the people in Washington say who have been pushing democracy and the will of the people.
Ukraine crisis: Early results show Crimea votes to join Russia - CNN.com
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.
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 Crimea voted to be independent of the Soviet Union (December 1991) and Ukraine (May 1992 -- rescinded then reconsidered 1994).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.Any particular reason why you hate the people Crimea? Some ancient grievance of something they did to your ancestors or something?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
We need to know about protests, and when. I'm waiting. Gimme some examples where you would've expected to see it.
lol of course! You haven't? Are you just talking about things you have no idea about? lol
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.
how many people were killed in the German invasion of Austria?
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/world/europe/crimea-ukraine-secession-vote-referendum.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."
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.
You cast a vote after the region was been invaded by Russian troops. That is voting at the point of a gun.
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.
You make assumptions, present them as facts, and link from blogs that don't even support your assumptions. So that's funny. Tell me more about "Academi" and what you know about CIA agents lol
What links was I supposed to post there? Do you not know about troop strength in ROK? About military contractors?
Or is that just another phrase you use when you don't know what else to say?
"Uhhhhhh...uh...talking points!....uhhh...no links!"
So basically you endorse separate-but-equal racism for which obviously everyone sticks with their own ethnicity? Then what is your ethnicity so we can pre-know where you stand on every issue given at least you are 100% loyal to your ethnicity whatever that leads to.
Seems like a perfect climate to reduce military spending, right Obama?
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.
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.
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.
You just like going over the top on just about everything.
THE point is the Crimea was NEVER a part of the Ukraine. Try reading history instead of making it up. The Crimea was Russian before the Ukraine was... try mid 1700's. In 1955 the now defunct USSR tried to attach the Crimea to Ukraine, but as a SEMI AUTONOMOUS region. Not a district, not a county, not a province.
Now as far as trying to make this racist... that is a new low...
In another post you make still more crap up, the Crimea has just under 2 million folks not 3 million (2013), the agreement with the Ukraine is for 16,000 troops to be stationed there... where do you get 22,000???
CIA and CIA front groups. It's like the story of the guy who has one glass of wine, but he's not referred to as a wino, but the same guy sucks one little dick and is forever known as a cokesuckaire. CIA taint is exactly the same. Check to see how many of these front groups are operating in Ukraine.
How the CIA Operates Through Non Governmental Agencies ‹ I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists
"Here is just a small list of various NGOs that are either known or are broadly accepted as CIA front operations. These organizations funnel money directly from their budget into various unknown and foundations, humanitarian groups, and private companies to further CIA priorities:
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs
National Endowment for Democracy
Freedom House
Millennium Challenge Corporation
International Center for Journalists
Center for International Private Enterprise
USAID "
"With regard to Freedom House, a United States-based NGO enjoying consultative status, the Permanent Representative of Cuba went on to say that the Committee had been dealing with that “so-called NGO” for several sessions after having received complaints from many delegations. He had submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO carried out against his Government. The NGO’s links with terrorist groups in Cuba as well as the fact that it was an instrument of the special services of the United States were no secret."
"Today, Freedom House continues to serve as both a think tank and a “civil society” funder as part of the State Department’s modern “democracy promotion” complex. Frequently cited in the press and academic works, the reports and studies produced by Freedom House and its affiliates promote the neoconservative ideology of its trustees and government sponsors. Although some names and affiliations have changed, the group is still dominated by neocons. Brzezinski, Kirkpatrick, and Forbes are still on the trustees list, as well as Liasson, O’Rourke, and Noonan.
Trustee Ken Adelman is a contributor to the Project for a New American Century, along with former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who joined Freedom House in 2000. Adelman was an assistant to Rumsfeld from 1975-1977, U.N. ambassador and arms control director under Reagan, and is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board. He wrote an article for The Washington Postin 2002 titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq”28 in which he said: “I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” Another trustee, Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington, is the U.S. author of the Trilateral Commission report, The Crisis of Democracy and The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order (1996)."
"Carl Bernstein writes in “the CIA and the Media“:
“Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations…”
The Church Committee uncovered how the CIA funded journalists abroad …where those stories"
"Alternet explains what you can do:
Combined with current events factoids, Wikipedia and Sourcewatch, anyone with basic internet competence [ability to follow links and do key word searches such as ‘African Wildlife Foundation, MI6, CIA’ or ‘Fossey Foundation, arms trafficking’] and is able to make and organize notes while sifting out blatantly misinformed or amateur articles, can learn to overcome disinformation, do their own analysis, map the corporate activities, identify the rip-offs and peoples exploited by these schemes, all while identifying the actual players and motives behind the New York Times propaganda.
Apply the preceding method and the result is quite clear; the New York Times is but one arm of a mechanism to deceive on behalf of a corporate centered sociopath get-mega-rich[er]-quick scheme of the 1%, exploiting Americans belief in their institutions, any consequence to the USA and actual democracy be damned in process"