Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,202
#5,202
for the tl;dr crowd what I read was: if we remove America and replace it with someone else, Putin basically says Russia should just replace America because Russia is the moral, technological, financial, humanitarian giant it is (ha),that all of our (world's) problems go away.


LONG VERSION: what I read in that link was we need more organizations in the world, apparently the UN, EU, EEU, WTO and a myriad of others aren't working today and so we need to create more of these groups to be effective. He also mentions several times international law and how we have to stick to it, history has proven that unless you have a power over all to institute and enforce those rules/laws its not going to work. This is the role America is trying to serve as the enforcer. and it makes us a very visible enemy. I really wish America would go into complete isolation mode for 4 years (a presidents term) or so and see what happens to the world. and see if people still complain or if they are clamoring for us to come back. we all want a system that needs no over site but that is impossible.

for such a long winded speech he doesn't say much at all. nothing on how his changes (breaking down the American monopoly) would make the world better, all he seems to say is that the current system doesn't work, it doesn't, so we need a new one. Without really spelling out how the new system works. which is exactly something he attacks in the speech. basically what I read was: its wrong if America does it, but its ok if the rest of the world does it.
 
#5,203
#5,203
LouderVol said:
for the tl;dr crowd what I read was: if we remove America and replace it with someone else, Putin basically says Russia should just replace America because Russia is the moral, technological, financial, humanitarian giant it is (ha),that all of our (world's) problems go away.
Click to expand...

I didn't get that from his comments. He states Russia isn't striving to be a superpower, but he isn't going to be the USAs lapdog either. Of course any world leader can say one thing while doing the exact opposite.
 
#5,204
#5,204
red butler said:
I didn't get that from his comments. He states Russia isn't striving to be a superpower, but he isn't going to be the USAs lapdog either. Of course any world leader can say one thing while doing the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

he does go out of his way to say that Russia isn't trying to be the USSR again, but says he doesn't want the US to be THE superpower. So unless the US crashes down to everyone else's level that means Russia is taking a step up. Not in and of itself a bad thing for a national leader to say about his country, but doesn't scream the peaceful world saver the article sets him up to be.
 
#5,207
#5,207
volprof said:
Propaganda war is heating up.

Ukraine's Maria Zarring with 34k breasts named RUSSIA'S top 'natural beauty'* | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Oh wait... Ukraine is saying that Russia "annexed" her as well.

Ukranian commentators have accused Russia of choosing the 28-year-old only because they wanted to humiliate Ukraine, and they are insisting that her breasts are not natural.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if she would have been Miss Ukraine, they would have sworn that they were real. Seems as though Kiev has a pattern of wanting to delegitimize anything that comes out of Crimea/Eastern Ukraine lately.
 
#5,209
#5,209
Rasputin_Vol said:
Someone explain to me how free and open elections can be an obstacle to peace?

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Rebel elections obstacle to peace - EU
Click to expand...

Velo Vol said:
If this image doesn't speak of a free and fair election, I don't know what does.

B1dNTTfIgAI5gAN.jpg
Click to expand...

free and open?

also, if it causes dissension its not promoting peace. it would be like if one of the states voted to secede, that would not promote peace at all. If the state wants to leave the country is it ok? what if a city votes to stay but the state votes to go, what if a neighborhood votes to leave while the city votes to stay? once you break authority up and let each individual live their own way its chaos.
 
#5,210
#5,210
here's another, not sure how comfortable i would be voting against the rebellion when they have a gun(s) in the pole station.
_78707196_024565733-1.jpg
 
#5,211
#5,211
LouderVol said:
free and open?

also, if it causes dissension its not promoting peace. it would be like if one of the states voted to secede, that would not promote peace at all. If the state wants to leave the country is it ok? what if a city votes to stay but the state votes to go, what if a neighborhood votes to leave while the city votes to stay? once you break authority up and let each individual live their own way its chaos.
Click to expand...

Your argument about secession is weak.
 
#5,212
#5,212
LouderVol said:
here's another, not sure how comfortable i would be voting against the rebellion when they have a gun(s) in the pole station.
_78707196_024565733-1.jpg
Click to expand...
Interesting that the OSCE actually came to observe the elections in Kiev, but made no effort to even recognize or attend the elections in Eastern Ukraine. Sounds like some grandstanding. Maybe the cynics in Kiev and the US should have sent some observers instead of pouting.

Ukraine: Donetsk votes for new reality in country that does not exist | World news | The Guardian
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)<http://www.osce.org/>, Europe's main election observing body, said it would have nothing to do with the elections.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#5,213
#5,213
Rasputin_Vol said:
Your argument about secession is weak.
Click to expand...

I didn't really see it as an argument, more of a question. where does the line start/stop. when is it ok to say when an entity has a right to rule itself? if the country says no can the state say yes? I would generally say yes. what if said state has armed men at the voting poles? then it becomes a heavy no.
 
#5,215
#5,215
Rasputin_Vol said:
A city/province can leave if it wants. That is a fundamental civil right of self-determination.

Europe's Latest Secession Movement: Venice? - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

if they have guns at the poles? makes it pretty illegitimate, talking about ukraine. i have no problem with a place voting to leave, but once it turns to violence, violence will determine the outcome not a vote. rules of escalation, once you take a step you can't go backwards because the old system you have overthrown would allow a legal method and then say you were justified.
 
#5,216
#5,216
LouderVol said:
free and open?
also, if it causes dissension its not promoting peace. it would be like if one of the states voted to secede, that would not promote peace at all. If the state wants to leave the country is it ok? what if a city votes to stay but the state votes to go, what if a neighborhood votes to leave while the city votes to stay? once you break authority up and let each individual live their own way its chaos.
Click to expand...

We're you this pro-union when the Soviet Union was breaking up?
 
#5,219
#5,219
LouderVol said:
and pretty sure it collapsed, not got voted apart, but the commies don't believe in voting so.....
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia "The final round of the Soviet Union's collapse began with a Ukrainian popular referendum on December 1, 1991, wherein 90% of voters opted for independence. By nearly all accounts, the secession of the second-most powerful republic ended any realistic chance of the Soviet Union staying united even on a limited scale."

By your logic, the USSR should have stayed together because all the former soviet states voting to secede would have led to chaos.
 
#5,220
#5,220
LouderVol said:
if they have guns at the poles? makes it pretty illegitimate, talking about ukraine. i have no problem with a place voting to leave, but once it turns to violence, violence will determine the outcome not a vote. rules of escalation, once you take a step you can't go backwards because the old system you have overthrown would allow a legal method and then say you were justified.
Click to expand...

So just because there were guns at the polls makes the vote illegitimate? Was this vote illegitimate?

An-Iraqi-soldier-searches-002.jpg


Caption reads "An Iraqi soldier searches a woman's purse at the entrance to a polling centre in central Baghdad"

My point is in some parts of the world polling stations are targets for violence and need security. It seems the only time the votes are illegitimate is when we disagree with the outcome.
 
#5,221
#5,221
red butler said:
From Wikipedia "The final round of the Soviet Union's collapse began with a Ukrainian popular referendum on December 1, 1991, wherein 90% of voters opted for independence. By nearly all accounts, the secession of the second-most powerful republic ended any realistic chance of the Soviet Union staying united even on a limited scale."

By your logic, the USSR should have stayed together because all the former soviet states voting to secede would have led to chaos.
Click to expand...

the collapse of the USSR hasn't lead to chaos? we are arguing about Ukraine and the chaos surrounding it, which as you pointed out was part of the USSR. the point i was making is that voting doesn't always lead to peaceful solutions, and that succession doesn't always make things better, this whole argument started with Ras and I feel you are pushing a different angle.

and as far as the American troops guarding Iraqi poles, there were also British, Polish, Canadian and maybe Australians guarding poles as well. Point being we were outsiders, and as far as I know we were literally outside the poles, not hovering over the ballot box. they weren't there voting for Bush vs Kerry. and again thanks for providing more pics of soldiers with guns at the ballot box, how did that turn out for Iraq? without a date its impossible to say, but I remember them getting rid of their President and replacing him. so guns at ballots does not equal a good thing. maybe if people felt more open about voting the first guy wouldn't have been elected and some of this chaos could have been avoided, but we will never know.
 
#5,222
#5,222
LouderVol said:
the collapse of the USSR hasn't lead to chaos? we are arguing about Ukraine and the chaos surrounding it, which as you pointed out was part of the USSR. the point i was making is that voting doesn't always lead to peaceful solutions, and that succession doesn't always make things better, this whole argument started with Ras and I feel you are pushing a different angle.
Click to expand...

I don't see what the different angle is. There were about 15 other countries that broke away from the USSR with no problems and Ukraine did it peacefully for 20 years. I do agree with Ras that the US started this whole mess in Ukraine and I believe people generally have the right to pursue self determination.
 
#5,223
#5,223
red butler said:
My point is in some parts of the world polling stations are targets for violence and need security. It seems the only time the votes are illegitimate is when we disagree with the outcome.
Click to expand...

In Ukraine the gun patrollers are the ones responsible for the violence they are supposedly guarding against.
 
#5,225
#5,225
red butler said:
I don't see what the different angle is. There were about 15 other countries that broke away from the USSR with no problems and Ukraine did it peacefully for 20 years. I do agree with Ras that the US started this whole mess in Ukraine and I believe people generally have the right to pursue self determination.
Click to expand...

if that self determination is supported by gun-toting men, how free are they to make the vote they want? in one of the pics it shows open ballot boxes where it looks like the person has to drop their vote into while a guy with a gun stares at them. If this is what we did in Iraq I am not ok with it. If we did do it, that does not ok it in Ukraine. But difference is we weren't on the ballot, while that is one of the main things on the ballot in Ukraine.

and yeah the problem came when Russia started grabbing up land, and enforcing their policy across their old lands. everybody over there is scared Russia is about to start stuff, and it goes beyond the MSM preaching a 'message of hate' countries are increasing the defense spending, watching their borders more and renewing alliances and pacts with other countries, speaking about the Scandinavian countries. Both Sweden and Finland aren't in NATO yet they are worried.
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top