• 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!

Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

MildSteel said:
Ninety five per cent. So ninety five percent of the people had guns to their heads? Please!!!
Click to expand...

The whole country has a gun to it's head, to both temples. On one side Ukraine/US and on the other side Russia.
 
MildSteel said:
To be generous, although the evidence I presented, when taken of itself it is not absolute conclusive proof, it still is substantial evidence. And furthermore when you take into consideration that the US has a well known history of overthrowing leaders that it disagrees it, the evidence presented becomes powerful. In other words if the US didn't have such a well known reputation for doing this kind of thing, your case might be stronger. But unfortunately, that's not the case. Therefore Rafeal Correa, the President of Ecuador, quipped that the only reason that there hasn't been a coup in the United States is because there is no US embassy there! lol
Click to expand...

It's certainly not absolute proof, because I would venture to say there's thousands of pictures (with digital technology, that's a low ball estimate) of Americans with notable political and military personalities in basically every nation. There's literally hundreds of thousands of pictures with various foreign ministry members meeting with local/national/regional persons of note the world over. That, too, is proof of nothing and barely even evidence. The US certainly tries to promote change in its favor the world over- just like any other nation but with usually greater capability. But that doesn't mean every change the world over is at the behest of the US. And simply saying "Well, they've done it before" really isn't a tenable argument.
 
DashingAmerican said:
The whole country has a gun to it's head, to both temples. On one side Ukraine/US and on the other side Russia.
Click to expand...

In a sense that's true. But I don't think the election in Crimea was held under an extreme amount of coercion.
 
MildSteel said:
In a sense that's true. But I don't think the election in Crimea was held under an extreme amount of coercion.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the ballots only had two options: Join Russia or Secede from Ukraine.

I believe that a lot of the people wanted to join Russia before, but the rest felt that it was the only non-violent thing to do.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Read the news. Watch the TV. Open your mind and see the facts. Until you're prepared to do that, there's nothing anyone can do to help you see the light. Others in this very thread have answered this same question.

This is like when my kids ask me for an answer and they don't like the answer. Asking the same question over and over again isn't going to garner you the answer you're looking for.

Russia invaded Crimea with armed force by the Russian military.

And the long post you keep putting in multiple threads? Dude, you're surprised by a US foreign diplomat taking pictures of them in a foreign country? Meeting with foreign leaders? Handing out cookies to people in the street that are protesting for freedom? Seriously? This is supposed to show some nefarious intent?

Open your mind. See the facts. Educate yourself regarding International Relations. Each country's IR is based on what's in the best interest for that country. The US having friends in that region is in the best national interest of the US.

Russia invaded Ukraine. They started in Crimea and have moved now into Ukraine proper. This is an invasion. We don't know if anyone has been killed, but we do know many have been arrested and have disappeared.

Any election conducted under those conditions cannot by any reasonable standard be trusted to be the true will of the people who are under the threat of force.

The vote was 95%? Only 58% of the population is ethnic Russian. There's no reasonable way to believe that 100% of that 58% would vote the same way. And even if they did, that means that 88% of the remaining ethnic groups would have had to vote the same way, if they were allowed to vote at all????

Do you know if the non-ethnic Russians were allowed to vote? And what percentage did vote if they did at all?

Seriously... let's all use logical thinking about this.
Click to expand...

Don't read the news and don''t watch the TV. Go find the news on foreign news outlets on the Internet. The Mainstream "Brainstream" Media is just a whitewash for propaganda purposes like in the old days of the USSR.
Russia did not invade Crimea. 26,000 troops were in the Country as agreed by Treaty. The troops are required to help these people and they did.
Nuland and the CIA through USAID and the NGOs established to organize rebellion and insurrection and train protestors and supply food to protestors is documented and represents the evil forces operating in Kiev. Even worse than Yanukovych.
Troops protected the Crimea voters so destabillzing elements from Kiev couldn't bring chaos, firebombs and death to Crimea.
I'm pretty sure the troops in Crimea were not Academi, but in Kiev that is a different story. Academi (Blackwater), mercenaries.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
It's certainly not absolute proof, because I would venture to say there's thousands of pictures (with digital technology, that's a low ball estimate) of Americans with notable political and military personalities in basically every nation. There's literally hundreds of thousands of pictures with various foreign ministry members meeting with local/national/regional persons of note the world over. That, too, is proof of nothing and barely even evidence. The US certainly tries to promote change in its favor the world over- just like any other nation but with usually greater capability. But that doesn't mean every change the world over is at the behest of the US. And simply saying "Well, they've done it before" really isn't a tenable argument.
Click to expand...

I have conceded that by themselves the pictures are not absolute proof. And although it is certainly true that hundreds of thousands of pictures with various foreign officials is meaningless, these pictures are certainly full of meaning. First of all Victoria Nuland is pictured passing out cookies to protesters right after Yanukovych rejected a EU deal in favor of one offered by Russia. Do you think she is passing out cookies just because she's a sweet little old lady? Hell no! It demonstrates that she is not pleased with the decision. Next of all, there is a call, which she had to apologize for, where she is clearly telling a subordinate to "f*ck the EU." Why? Because she doesn't want them in the way of what she's trying to do. Then she says "Yats is the man." Damn!!! That's practically spelling it out. Then she is pictured with not only with Yarsenyi Yatsenyuk, but Vitali Klitschko, and Oleh Tyahnybok as well. This is after she has said

I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside.
Click to expand...

There she is with all three. Just a coincidence? Then guess who just so happens to become Prime Minister of Ukraine? None other than Yarsenyi Yatsenyuk. That's right, good old Yats. Then when you take that in the context of the known fact that the United States engages in the overthrow of leaders of countries that it doesn't like, it is very, very powerful evidence. You would have to be stupid to not at least admit that it is very possible that the US played a strong role in the installation of Yarsenyi Yatsenyuk as prime minister.
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
Don't read the news
Click to expand...

Great advice, as always.

Russia did not invade Crimea. 26,000 troops were in the Country as agreed by Treaty.
Click to expand...

By this logic the US cannot invade South Korea.

I'm pretty sure the troops in Crimea were not Academi, but in Kiev that is a different story. Academi (Blackwater), mercenaries.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea either way, clearly, but you also seem to be exhibiting an absolute ignorance on the way military contractors work.
 
MildSteel said:
I have conceded that by themselves the pictures are not absolute proof. And although it is certainly true that hundreds of thousands of pictures with various foreign officials is meaningless, these pictures are certainly full of meaning.
Click to expand...

What makes these more special than the multitudes of others? Why are they important but others are not? Why do they indicate conspiracy while the others do not?

First of all Victoria Nuland is pictured passing out cookies to protesters right after Yanukovych rejected a EU deal in favor of one offered by Russia. Do you think she is passing out cookies just because she's a sweet little old lady? Hell no! It demonstrates that she is not pleased with the decision.
Click to expand...

She's doing it to show the protesters that the US supports them in spirit. If the US was supporting them via the CIA, what would the benefit of doing that be?

Next of all, there is a call, which she had to apologize for, where she is clearly telling a subordinate to "f*ck the EU." Why? Because she doesn't want them in the way of what she's trying to do. Then she says "Yats is the man." Damn!!! That's practically spelling it out. Then she is pictured with not only with Yarsenyi Yatsenyuk, but Vitali Klitschko, and Oleh Tyahnybok as well. This is after she has said
Click to expand...

That's not spelling it out. That's her telling someone who she thinks is going to be in charge. And then her trying to cozy up to them. Doing what a diplomat is supposed to do, in other words. Would it have been better if she were wrong? Is that what US diplomats should do now? Try to be wrong, in case their opinions are leaked at a later date, because people on the internet might think there was a conspiracy?

There she is with all three. Just a coincidence?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. It's absolutely not a coincidence. She purposely is trying to make in-roads with the people that she and her office believe will become the most powerful people in Ukraine. That's her job. If she was secretly making them become the most powerful people, why pose with them in a picture? Kinda defeats the purpose of "secret".

Then guess who just so happens to become Prime Minister of Ukraine? None other than Yarsenyi Yatsenyuk. That's right, good old Yats. Then when you take that in the context of the known fact that the United States engages in the overthrow of leaders of countries that it doesn't like, it is very, very powerful evidence. You would have to be stupid to not at least admit that it is very possible that the US played a strong role in the installation of Yarsenyi Yatsenyuk as prime minister.
Click to expand...

It's extremely slight evidence. Like...extremely slight. When you consider the number of changes of government that the US doesn't play a part in, and the amount of power players that US diplomats meet with, it means basically nothing. US diplomats meet with all the senior members of both of Taiwan's major political groups, as well as their minor groups. As well as their military. The same with Japan. South Korea. Germany. France. India. Malaysia. Indonesia. And many more (most, actually...of course they're not meeting with any other parties leadership in China, for example, for obvious reasons). If and when there's unrest there, and a diplomat makes a phone call and predicts who's gonna be next in power...is that all now "very, very powerful evidence" of the US-created coup?


To you, I guess, it will be.
 
Last edited:
DashingAmerican said:
Like I said, the ballots only had two options: Join Russia or Secede from Ukraine.

I believe that a lot of the people wanted to join Russia before, but the rest felt that it was the only non-violent thing to do.
Click to expand...

It was clear before the referendum that a majority of the people their identify with Russia. And BTW, there is a substantial number of people in the rest of Ukraine that feel that way as well. Everyone knew how this was going to turn out. And it's not because someone was pointing a gun to their head making them do it, it's because many of the people there just feel that way. Although, it's possible that what you say about some doing it to avoid trouble may be true. But I haven't seen any objective evidence to support that.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Great advice, as always.



By this logic the US cannot invade South Korea.



You have absolutely no idea either way, clearly, but you also seem to be exhibiting an absolute ignorance on the way military contractors work.
Click to expand...

You are a veritable fountain of disinformation, so you're earning your pay. You won't have to back up to your paycheck. Your links are missing, as usual, but don't think I am referring to you as a missing link. Your opinions are noted as just that. No facts. No links. NeoCon dreams of domination and power. Don't drink the water.
 
DaveFagan said:
You are a veritable fountain of disinformation
Click to expand...

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!"
 
Wiseone said:
Its not the Crimea its Russia, and no I don't given the same respect to dictators and invaders that I give to other kinds of people.

And lets talk about your failing, you say the last President of Ukraine was removed by a coup and thats wrong. Now Russia is annexing Crimea via coup in their Parliament as well, but thats OK? Tell me where are your standards? How is that ok but my position, which is the opposite is not?

Don't be a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Let me give you the historical play by play.

1) Viktor Yanukovych was removed with 328 votes by the Parliament. The Ukrainian Constitution requires 338 votes and a review of the "Supreme Court". Yanukovych was accused of using snipers to kill protestors but even head members of the EU and Foreign Minsters doesn't buy that. Another source.

2) On February 26th Ukrainian and Russian (Crimeans) clashed in Simferopol over the proposed repeal of Law of Languages by the Ukrainian Parliament. The repeal would have made the Ukrainian the only legal language despite the fact that regional languages were recognized for decades, even in Soviet Russia. There are places in Ukraine where only Hungarian is spoken for official purposes on the local level. Same with Romanian.

3) After this clash the local Russians in Crimea asked Russia to come into protect them because they didn't trust the new Illegal Government of Ukraine and for good reason as I'll explain later.

4) Russian send a small protection force. Considering how many troops are located in that part of Russia.

5) Crimea officially declares a vote.


Russia sending a protection force in to Crimea is typically the status quo when dealing with outbreaks of violence in European countries. NATO sent forces to the Balkans and provide protection to this day. Certain countries declared independence early and fought a bitter war over it. Kosovo on the other hand relied on NATO protection and "declared" independence a good 9 years into NATO control. US and others had no problem accepting.

Crimea was always Russian, just Ukrainian in name. Many in Crimea were mad when Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine symbolically in 1954 as a 300 year anniversary gift. And they were mad when they were forced into Ukraine in 1991/1992. Crimea is and will always be Russian. Crimea wants to be apart of Russia and always has. This isn't news to those who know the history.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
What makes these more special than the multitudes of others? Why are they important but others are not? Why do they indicate conspiracy while the others do not?
Click to expand...

I said why. You cut off the response.

OldWorldOrder said:
She's doing it to show the protesters that the US supports them in spirit.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that the State Department was talking about imposing sanctions. So like I said, she was out there because she was displeased with the decision to reject the EU offer.


OldWorldOrder said:
That's not spelling it out. That's her telling someone who she thinks is going to be in charge.
Click to expand...

And guess what, he is the prime minister now, not because he was chosen in free and fair elections, but after Yanukovych was violently overthrown. And you can bet, "Yats" is going to do what the EU and Victoria Nuland wants.

OldWorldOrder said:
No, not at all. It's absolutely not a coincidence. She purposely is trying to make in-roads with the people that she and her office believe will become the most powerful people in Ukraine. That's her job. If she was secretly making them become the most powerful people, why pose with them in a picture? Kinda defeats the purpose of "secret".
Click to expand...

She's making it known that these are the people that the US wants to be the most powerful people and that Yanukovych is no longer acceptable to the US. If you want to make that clear, you can't keep that a secret. If you want people put in there, you have to let people know who you want in there. It makes sense to be seen publicly with people you want in power, to make it clear who you want in power, while at the same time working in secret to put them in power.

OldWorldOrder said:
It's extremely slight evidence. Like...extremely slight. When you consider the number of changes of government that the US doesn't play a part in, and the amount of power players that US diplomats meet with, it means basically nothing.
Click to expand...

When you consider that it happened right after Yanukovych rejected the deal offered by the EU and that the State Department, of which Victoria Nuland is a part, threatened to impose sanctions. When you consider that Victoria Nuland is so displeased she goes out on the streets passing out cookies. Damn, passing out cookies! ROFLMAO!!! These people are something else. Passing out cookies. That's a good one!!! When you consider she is one the phone saying "f*ck in EU" because they are in her way. Then she is pictured with her man "Yats" right before he is made prime minister after the violent overthrow of the government, it's very powerful evidence.

You can spin, but you can't hide.
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
You are a veritable fountain of disinformation, so you're earning your pay. You won't have to back up to your paycheck. Your links are missing, as usual, but don't think I am referring to you as a missing link. Your opinions are noted as just that. No facts. No links. NeoCon dreams of domination and power. Don't drink the water.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was sitting here wondering if the US paid people to do this type of thing. They probably get trained and everything. But that is speculation.
 
MildSteel said:
I said why. You cut off the response.
Click to expand...

But none of them made any sense.

You forgot to mention that the State Department was talking about imposing sanctions. So like I said, she was out there because she was displeased with the decision to reject the EU offer.
Click to expand...

...So? You don't think foreign officials the world over meet with locals even when displeased?

And guess what, he is the prime minister now, not because he was chosen in free and fair elections, but after Yanukovych was violently overthrown. And you can bet, "Yats" is going to do what the EU and Victoria Nuland wants.
Click to expand...

That can be true, or that can be untrue. Either way, it does nothing to refute what I said.

She's making it known that these are the people that the US wants to be the most powerful people and that Yanukovych is no longer acceptable to the US. If you want to make that clear, you can't keep that a secret. If you want people put in there, you have to let people know who you want in there. It makes sense to be seen publicly with people you want in power, to be seen with people you want in power, while at the same time working in secret to put them in power.
Click to expand...

...why would you want that known? If they have the power to just install people...why bother? You don't think intelligence services utilize proxies? Lots of foreign affairs officials take photograph with lots of local powerful people, is that what they're doing when they do that?

When you consider that it happened right after Yanukovych rejected the deal offered by the EU and the State Department, of which Victoria Nuland is a part, threatened to impose sanctions. When you consider that Victoria Nuland is so displeased she goes out on the streets passing out cookies. Damn, passing out cookies! ROFLMAO!!! These people are something else. Passing out cookies. That's a good one!!! When you consider she is one the phone saying "f*ck in EU" because they are in her way. Then she is pictured with her man "Yats" right before he is made prime minister after the violent overthrow of the government, it's very powerful evidence.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. What you have is a State Department official taking a picture with a national figure (normal) and then telling an associate that he was probably going to take power (also normal, her job is to know that). That's all you have.

You're in danger of your posts delving into conspiracy theory forum fare. You want something to be true, so you just post circumstantial evidence in the hopes you can convince someone. Can I go out on a limb and assume you've never been to an embassy social? Oh, the characters you'll meet. I was never important enough to have my picture taken with anyone, but to you? There would be "powerful evidence" of so many conspiracies!

You can spin, but you can't hide.
Click to expand...

You can make things up, and no one can prove a negative. What was that Glen Beck thing? "Why has MildSteel never come out and said he didn't commit manslaughter!? Be honest, MildSteel, have you ever denied, before this post, that you committed manslaughter on July 19th 2002?" What you're doing is barely a step up from that. It's just silly, dude.
 
I think we can all agree that we've delved straight into conspiracy theory forum central. Now the question is: are middle class Americans more or less obsessed with conspiracies than lower class Arabs? The greatest debate for the next 10-20 years. Like tastes great vs. less filling.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
But none of them made any sense.
Click to expand...

They made sense, that's why you are trying to spin out of it.

OldWorldOrder said:
...So? You don't think foreign officials the world over meet with locals even when displeased?
Click to expand...

She isn't just meeting with locals. She is passing out cookies to people who are protesting against Yanukovych. How many pictures can you produce of the Assistant Secretary of State passing out cookies to people who are protesting against the prime minister of a government? I doubt you can produce any

OldWorldOrder said:
That can be true, or that can be untrue. Either way, it does nothing to refute what I said.
Click to expand...

It's part of the refutation of you assertion that the US did not play a substantial role in the installation of Yarsenyi Yatsenyuk as prime minister.


OldWorldOrder said:
...why would you want that known? If they have the power to just install people...why bother?
Click to expand...

Because it's part of the process of making them powerful. You appear with them in public. Don't you understand? When people are photographed with powerful people, it makes them appear powerful too. It's a very old device. By appearing with the king, you also appear powerful. 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.

OldWorldOrder said:
No, it's not. What you have is a State Department official taking a picture with a national figure (normal) and then telling an associate that he was probably going to take power (also normal, her job is to know that). That's all you have.
Click to expand...

And it's right after the State Department has threatened to impose sanctions on the Ukraine for not taking up their offer. It's right after Victoria Nuland is pictured passing out cookies to people who are protesting against the prime minister of a democratically elected government. It was taken after she is talking on the phone saying "f*ck the EU" because they are in her way. It was taken after she is on the phone telling a subordinate "Yats is the man." It's all that.

OldWorldOrder said:
You want something to be true, so you just post circumstantial evidence in the hopes you can convince someone.
Click to expand...

I have put forward a hypothesis and I have given evidence to support my claim. The evidence is strong, people can believe it or not.

Do this for me, show me another picture of the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States passing out cookies to people who are protesting against the democratically elected prime minister of a government. Show me just one.

OldWorldOrder said:
Can I go out on a limb and assume you've never been to an embassy social? Oh, the characters you'll meet. I was never important enough to have my picture taken with anyone, but to you? There would be "powerful evidence" of so many conspiracies!
Click to expand...

So you have been to one? Interesting. So have you, or do you now work for the government? What were you doing there?

The conspiracy theory stuff is spin. The evidence is there, and it's powerful.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I think we can all agree that we've delved straight into conspiracy theory forum central. Now the question is: are middle class Americans more or less obsessed with conspiracies than lower class Arabs? The greatest debate for the next 10-20 years. Like tastes great vs. less filling.
Click to expand...

That's what you call spin. You would make Edward Bernays proud. Notice the "I think we can all agree." It's like you have taken a poll.
 
Wiseone said:
Wow dude, you support dictatorships invading other nations and using criminal means to destroy their governments to turn them into puppets?

That's sick.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention one word about Obama...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom