• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine accuses Russia of Occupation calls for help from US/UK

Commie said:
Unfortunately, he is in a situation to have more access than anyone else. But, even aside from what Snowden might have, there were stories going back 10 years to when this Orange Revolution first started, that listed the American N.G.O.'s that were operating and trying to manipulate events on the ground, all under the cover of providing charity and aid. The same organizations...one unfortunately started by the same guy who's got Greenwald and Scahill on board now, has been active behind the pro-western movements in the Ukraine. It was recognized to be a divided nation right when it first became independent; so any moves to carve Ukraine away from Russia's influence and into the U.S. and possibly NATO alliance, would obviously be treated as a hostile move by Putin or any Russian president. I would bet that any Russian president...even the most compliant like Boris Yeltsin would have been moving troops from their base in Crimea to prevent a western government from taking over.
Click to expand...

There is a conspiracy section elsewhere on these boards.
 
Grant said:
The Crimea belongs to the Ukraine. As you say, the port is "rented". Does the tenant have the right to overthrow the landlord?

It also doesn't matter if it is a "US style invasion" or a German style of invasion. It is an invasion.

You also need look up the word "imperialism" and German activities immediately prior to WWII.
Click to expand...

The mob that started burning **** overthrew Putins landlord, you'd do good to not twist the facts. Securing his belongings has nothing to do with Hitler, imperialism, WW2 or any of the other rubbish you're bringing up.
 
Montecresto said:
The mob that started burning **** overthrew Putins landlord, you'd do good to not twist the facts. Securing his belongings has nothing to do with Hitler, imperialism, WW2 or any of the other rubbish you're bringing up.
Click to expand...

So let's see here. If you are the leftist in the US demonstrating against "American hegomony" then it's all good with you, but a Ukrainian demonstration now against Russian hegomony well then it's just a mob...I think we see where you stand.
 
MadLib said:
I love it when the apologists for Russian expansionism support the idea of Putin forcibly restoring Yanukovych to the presidency. That would be political and diplomatic suicide for Moscow: there's no way that the Ukrainian people would stand even a few more months of that crook's regime, and whatever existing support for Russia amongst Ukrainians would vanish.
Click to expand...

Prince Metternich knew quite a bit about frustrating the popular will, but he observed that while one could do many things with bayonets, one could not sit on them. In others words, rule by force alone is untenable.:peace
 
j-mac said:
So let's see here. If you are the leftist in the US demonstrating against "American hegomony" then it's all good with you, but a Ukrainian demonstration now against Russian hegomony well then it's just a mob...I think we see where you stand.
Click to expand...

Good try. You loose your status as protesters and become a mob of thugs when you start destroying public property and injuring police. See the distinction?
 
Montecresto said:
Good try. You loose your status as protesters and become a mob of thugs when you start destroying public property and injuring police. See the distinction?
Click to expand...

Really? Even when the property represents a tyrannical regime and the police are enforcers of tyranny? What level of oppression is required to justify violent resistance? Our own country is the product of a violent uprising.:peace
 
Montecresto said:
I do not understand why your having trouble with this, unless you are just enjoying being contrary. I don't believe that at this point Russia has violated IL. I do believe the US has a long history of it. It does appear that you may have just conceded yourself that Russia hasn't violated IL, citing that people may just be condemning Russia for doing what's good for them, but maybe isn't good for the West/US.
Click to expand...

mother_of_god_Half_Life_2_Lamp-s233x249-341301-580.jpg

This is just...sweet jesus, man. It's not even your opinions- it's your deplorable cognitive skills.

Let's take this step-by-step, since apparently you need every damn inch laid out for you

"I don't believe that at this point Russia has violated IL. I do believe the US has a long history of it." That's great. That's...silly, but let's accept it and just look at how well you do or don't think. If you believe that I just quoted you as writing than why would you think that anybody excusing what the US has done in the last 13 years while condemning Russia would be the inconsistent ones? They would have nothing to do with each other! The only way that "anybody excusing what the US has done in the last 13 years while condemning Russia would be the inconsistent ones" would be if both the US and Russia violated international law (which they both have done). So that point you made wasn't even internally consistent using your own argument. That's why I told you to reread it. That's why I told you the transitive property is, by definition, transitive. But you didn't reread it and you didn't get it.

Now for the second "oh my god did he really just say that" moment from your post:

"It does appear that you may have just conceded yourself that Russia hasn't violated IL, citing that people may just be condemning Russia for doing what's good for them, but maybe isn't good for the West/US."

Huh? Wha? Why? How? How could you possibly come to that conclusion? I'm saying that people might condemn Russian actions as not being good for American interests, REGARDLESS of whether or not they violated international law or whether they care about international law. And you somehow took that to mean that I believe Russia did not? lol WHY? Why would you even come to that conclusion? I'm honestly laughing as I'm typing this, because it makes no sense. Just laughing out of incredulity. It's like you simply can't understand that someone might not think like you do.

"Errr, that guy doesn't care whether or not Russia violated international law, he just doesn't like them expanding power at the expense of the West? Durrrr, by golly, that must mean he doesn't think Russia violated international law!"

The repeated and flagrant violations against critical thinking and cognitive ability that you're guilty of make it all but impossible to have an actual conversation about events with you. You consistently hold nations to different standards, you consistently shift the goalposts as far as what you're arguing, and- and this is the worst- you consistently assume that when someone says X, they mean Y. And Y always, in your mind, helps to prove your point...except it only hammers home that you shifted the goalposts and hold different nations to different standards. It's like it's recursive. You can't talk about issues because you lack the ability to hold an extended conversation about anything in lucid manner. It's absurd at this point. I'm going to start to make a list, it's crazy.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Good try. You loose your status as protesters and become a mob of thugs when you start destroying public property and injuring police. See the distinction?
Click to expand...

So the 1999 Seattle WTO...opposition. They were protesters? Or they were a mob of thugs?

Try to stay focused here. Don't start talking about how different countries have different standards, don't start trying to put words in people's mouths. Just...answer.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
View attachment 67162976

This is just...sweet jesus, man. It's not even your opinions- it's your deplorable cognitive skills.

Let's take this step-by-step, since apparently you need every damn inch laid out for you

"I don't believe that at this point Russia has violated IL. I do believe the US has a long history of it." That's great. That's...silly, but let's accept it and just look at how well you do or don't think. If you believe that I just quoted you as writing than why would you think that anybody excusing what the US has done in the last 13 years while condemning Russia would be the inconsistent ones? They would have nothing to do with each other! The only way that "anybody excusing what the US has done in the last 13 years while condemning Russia would be the inconsistent ones" would be if both the US and Russia violated international law (which they both have done). So that point you made wasn't even internally consistent using your own argument. That's why I told you to reread it. That's why I told you the transitive property is, by definition, transitive. But you didn't reread it and you didn't get it.

Now for the second "oh my god did he really just say that" moment from your post:

"It does appear that you may have just conceded yourself that Russia hasn't violated IL, citing that people may just be condemning Russia for doing what's good for them, but maybe isn't good for the West/US."

Huh? Wha? Why? How? How could you possibly come to that conclusion? I'm saying that people might condemn Russia it's not good for American interests, REGARDLESS of whether or not they violated international law or whether they care about international law. And you somehow took that to mean that I believe Russia did not? lol WHY? Why would you even come to that conclusion? I'm honestly laughing as I'm typing this, because it makes no sense. Just laughing out of incredulity. It's like you simply can't understand that someone might not think like you do.

"Errr, that guy doesn't care whether or not Russia violated international law, he just doesn't like them expanding power at the expense of the West? Durrrr, by golly, that must mean he doesn't think Russia violated international law!"

The repeated and flagrant violations against critical thinking and cognitive ability that you're guilty of make it all but impossible to have an actual conversation about events with you. You consistently hold nations to different standards, you consistently shift the goalposts as far as what you're arguing, and- and this is the worst- you consistently assume that when someone says X, they mean Y. And Y always, in your mind, helps to prove your point...except it only hammers home that you shifted the goalposts and hold different nations to different standards. It's like it's recursive. You can't talk about issues because you lack the ability to hold an extended conversation about anything in lucid manner. It's absurd at this point. I'm going to start to make a list, it's crazy.
Click to expand...

Seriously!! With regard to violating international law, I'm focusing on this Ukrainian issue. Of course I know Russia has violated IL in history. IL is important only when someone else is violating it. Your making this simple concept complex, for what, why? Such trouble you put yourself through.
 
Montecresto said:
You do see the difference between Hitler's move and Putin though don't you?
Click to expand...

I don't. Hitler also claimed is first actions were to protect large German populations falsely declared being under attack.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So the 1999 Seattle WTO...opposition. They were protesters? Or they were a mob of thugs?

Try to stay focused here. Don't start talking about how different countries have different standards, don't start trying to put words in people's mouths. Just...answer.
Click to expand...

They were a mob of thugs of course.
 
joko104 said:
I don't. Hitler also claimed is first actions were to protect large German populations falsely declared being under attack.
Click to expand...

Ok, well we'll see.
 
Montecresto said:
Seriously!! With regard to violating international law, I'm focusing on this Ukrainian issue. Of course I know Russia has violated IL in history. IL is important only when someone else is violating it. Your making this simple concept complex, for what, why? Such trouble you put yourself through.
Click to expand...

This...isn't hard, Monte. It's not difficult to point out how ridiculous your arguments are.

It's not hard to point out how ridiculously hypocritical you are, either. In trying to squirm out of being identified as a huge hypocrite, you make horrible, horrible logical fallacies and make it only that much more obvious.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
This...isn't hard, Monte. It's not difficult to point out how ridiculous your arguments are.

It's not hard to point out how ridiculously hypocritical you are, either.
Click to expand...

Ok old, you massage yourself with that. I've got work to do on another thread too.
 
Montecresto said:
That's happened in America. It's tragic and isn't supported. But neither is injuring police and destroying public property. Ask Nuland if that was part of the plan.
Click to expand...

How about the Ukrainian government firing into an unarmed crowd and passing laws that restricted free expression? What government could claim legitimacy after doing that?
 
MadLib said:
How about the Ukrainian government firing into an unarmed crowd and passing laws that restricted free expression? What government could claim legitimacy after doing that?
Click to expand...

There's governments all around the world that do just that and claim legitimacy. You're real concerned about civilians except when its US drones killing them. And considering Nulands comments three weeks before this broke out, the US once again has bloody hands.
 
MadLib said:
How about the Ukrainian government firing into an unarmed crowd and passing laws that restricted free expression? What government could claim legitimacy after doing that?
Click to expand...

Russia.

Did I answer correctly?
 
Montecresto said:
There's governments all around the world that do just that and claim legitimacy. You're real concerned about civilians except when its US drones killing them. And considering Nulands comments three weeks before this broke out, the US once again has bloody hands.
Click to expand...

More evidence that this is paid propaganda.:peace
 
Montecresto said:
You're real concerned about civilians except when its US drones killing them.
Click to expand...

The difference is I don't support droning civilians who riot and protest against our presence. Drones may be misguided, but this is fascism, pure and simple.
 
MadLib said:
The difference is I don't support droning civilians who riot and protest against our presence. Drones may be misguided, but this is fascism, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

A dead civilian is a dead civilian. Drones are misguided.
 
Montecresto said:
That's happened in America. It's tragic and isn't supported. But neither is injuring police and destroying public property. Ask Nuland if that was part of the plan.
Click to expand...

No, it happened in the Ukraine.

People who protest should be murdered, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom