Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/5/2014 5:20:04 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But I love the nutsackers defending muslims now.



Indeedies......... I pointed out one of them was defending German Royalty in another thread.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/5/2014 5:30:09 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
well, hell, who aint german royalty, England, Russia, France.......why are all us krauts fighting? 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/5/2014 6:36:05 PM   
MrBukani


Posts: 1920
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline
nutbuttersquash sacksuckin fatfuckin fartlovin faghagglin pissnpoopproppers?

< Message edited by MrBukani -- 3/5/2014 6:38:32 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/5/2014 8:24:53 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
FR

I'm curious... has anyone read this recent Putin interview yet?

Perhaps Abby Martin jumped the gun with her post-show, personally-scripted commentary. I wonder if she'll get the axe.

(in reply to MrBukani)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/5/2014 9:16:16 PM   
Arturas


Posts: 3245
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChateauEldri

Republicans can grandstand about Obama's choices on this, but the bottom line is that the US and the UK have a nuclear disarmament treaty with Ukraine. In exchange for protecting it's borders against incursion, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal. If Ukraine makes a formal appeal to the US and UK for protection, we would be faced the choice between dishonoring a treaty or declaring war on Russia. This is, by the way, how the last two World Wars started... webs of treaties and alliances coming into play after an international incident.

UK Telegraph



Yeah, I have been kind of wondering about that treaty as well.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is an international treaty signed on February, 5, 1994, in Budapest between Ukraine, USA, Russia, and the United Kingdom concerning nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and security assurances of her independence. According to the treaty Ukraine has abandoned her nuclear arsenal to Russia, while Russia, USA, and the UK have promised (1) to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within her borders; (2) to protect Ukraine from outer aggression and not to conduct aggression toward Ukraine; (3) not to put economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence her politics; (4) not to use nuclear arms against Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances&redirect=no

Yeah, yeah, it is wiki, but here ya go:

https://www.msz.gov.pl/en/p/wiedenobwe_at_s_en/news/memorandum_on_security_assurances_in_connection_with_ukraine_s_accession_to_the_treaty_on_the_npt?printMode=true


Let's be accurate here. Then we can go log off and read a book, write a book, enjoy the kids and the wife or husband or a cruise down to the local burger joint knowing what, is what.

1) Russia has avoided it's obligation to respect Ukraine's borders in two ways: Send troop in without markings claiming they are not Russian troops and since the last and some might say real Ukrainian President asked for help then they can always drop back to that story and are instead peacekeepers rather than invaders.

2) The U.S. is obligated to come to Ukraine's assistance ONLY if it is threatened with nuclear weapons NOT if they are invaded by non-nuclear forces.

3) AS I have pointed out in previous posts, the Ukraine still has tactical nuclear weapons, small ones used to wipe out entire tank columns and brigade size concentrations in a single blast. In 1992, then President Leonid Kravchuck stopped the transfer of tactical nuclear weapons from the Ukraine. Smart man. Unfortunately this means world war III could break out in this location, worst case. So yes, according to the treaty, Ukraine was to have shipped all nukes to Russia where they would be destroyed. And all strategic weapons including missile carried nukes are gone, but not the battle field nukes.

... and so the mouse can roar, indeed. This is possibly why Russia has not crossed into the Ukraine yet an wants to intimidate from across the border in the Crimea, at least until they can find and secure the tactical nuke weapons they know are still available to the mouse.


_____________________________

"We master Our world."

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/5/2014 10:37:22 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

FR

I'm curious... has anyone read this recent Putin interview yet?

Perhaps Abby Martin jumped the gun with her post-show, personally-scripted commentary. I wonder if she'll get the axe.



Even better ...

Kudos to this young lady for having the courage of her convictions!





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/5/2014 11:17:57 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

FR

I'm curious... has anyone read this recent Putin interview yet?

Perhaps Abby Martin jumped the gun with her post-show, personally-scripted commentary. I wonder if she'll get the axe.



Even better ...

Kudos to this young lady for having the courage of her convictions!






I'm not sure. If Putin's interview has any merit, both of these women may have jumped the gun. I'm curious to know specifically what information they based their positions on.

In any event, here's the latest on Abby Martin.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 12:51:46 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

I'm not sure. If Putin's interview has any merit, both of these women may have jumped the gun. I'm curious to know specifically what information they based their positions on.

In any event, here's the latest on Abby Martin.



I don't trust Putin as far as I could throw him.

When the wall fell, I warned people: "Soviet Russia will be back. We're not done with them, yet. This move toward (seeming) freedom is well covered in the Communist Manifesto."

The passage to which I refer is the part where Marx says that socialism/communism cannot succeed until capitalism has run its course. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Russian leaders were just giving people a little "reminder" of what capitalism is all about.

When people aren't eating, the atmosphere is rife for revolution (or, in this case; regression).





< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 3/6/2014 12:52:05 AM >


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 1:56:51 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
Putin is a long way from the old "Soviet Russia" in his ideology.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 5:28:14 AM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

I'm not sure. If Putin's interview has any merit, both of these women may have jumped the gun. I'm curious to know specifically what information they based their positions on.

In any event, here's the latest on Abby Martin.



I don't trust Putin as far as I could throw him.

When the wall fell, I warned people: "Soviet Russia will be back. We're not done with them, yet. This move toward (seeming) freedom is well covered in the Communist Manifesto."

The passage to which I refer is the part where Marx says that socialism/communism cannot succeed until capitalism has run its course. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Russian leaders were just giving people a little "reminder" of what capitalism is all about.

When people aren't eating, the atmosphere is rife for revolution (or, in this case; regression).






I'm still on the fence. The questions Putin accepted in the interview were certainly not softballs. This gave the interview an air of sincerity. The only stonewall I recall without re-reading the entire interview, involved his lengthy telephone conversation with Obama.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 8:16:57 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
Just because Putin is from Russia don't forget he is a politician. And that the way to tell when a politician is lying is to see if his lips are moving.

And it is for the Ukrainians and Russians to work them out.

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 8:58:50 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
The lunatic fringe is still stuck in the 50s and is to dumb to differentiate between the true evil that the soviets were and your run of the mill thug.


Its also interesting and amusing that the PsOS gloating that "they were right about putin" .... like SFBs sarah palin are the same jerk-offs who`re man-crushing putin....



""People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.”




_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 9:16:36 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

I'm not sure. If Putin's interview has any merit, both of these women may have jumped the gun. I'm curious to know specifically what information they based their positions on.

In any event, here's the latest on Abby Martin.



I don't trust Putin as far as I could throw him.

When the wall fell, I warned people: "Soviet Russia will be back. We're not done with them, yet. This move toward (seeming) freedom is well covered in the Communist Manifesto."

The passage to which I refer is the part where Marx says that socialism/communism cannot succeed until capitalism has run its course. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Russian leaders were just giving people a little "reminder" of what capitalism is all about.

When people aren't eating, the atmosphere is rife for revolution (or, in this case; regression).



I don't know if "Soviet Russia" will be back or not, although I try to look at Russian history as a continuous progression rather than through an ideological lens. While Lenin may have been a Marxist, he implemented his own version of it, while Stalin implemented an even different version in which he reshaped the Soviet Union in his own image. But after Stalin's death in 1953, there was a slow but continuous thaw in which the Stalinist residue slowly melted away.

To be sure, we were getting mixed signals and not really clear as to what they were doing or what their agenda truly was. Khrushchev may have denounced Stalin and reduced some of the excesses of the old regime, he still invaded Hungary in 1956 and sent missiles to Cuba in 1962. On the other hand, he was ultimately removed from power and replaced by Brezhnev, who may have seemed more "sane" and stable compared to his predecessors. It was still Soviet, but there were indications that things were starting to loosen up (but not by much, considering the invasions of Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and the treatment of Solzhenitsyn and other dissidents). Still, it was no longer in a "revolutionary" state as back in 1917-1920s, and Stalin was gone, too.

One thing that I remember from my travels through that country (when it was still the Soviet Union) was that the overall perspective of the people I spoke to was very heavily influenced by their memories of World War II. And when one looks over the whole of Russian history, most of the time, they're the ones getting invaded and occupied. They don't really see themselves as an aggressor nation or an "evil empire" and could never understand why we hated them so much. To some degree, they feel offended when Americans presume to pass judgment on them, since they see that we haven't gone through the same history and level of destruction and tragedy that they faced. It wasn't just World War II, but in the first half of the 20th century, they started out with a failed and costly war against Japan and a revolution at home, then World War I, a revolution, then another revolution, then a civil war, then collectivization/industrialization (along with a famine that killed millions), then the purges and show trials, then World War II.

During the same period, the U.S. certainly had its share of problems, difficulties, and even wars, but we didn't really go through nearly as much as they did. And we've never had a foreign army occupy huge chunks of our territory, utterly devastate our cities, and wantonly murder our people by the millions. If that happened to America and we managed to drive the invaders out, we'd probably feel justified in doing whatever it takes to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen again. But once that was established and all the chaos and killing were over, my sense was that they wanted to "normalize" relations with the U.S. They didn't want war, especially they knew first-hand just how devastating it can be. They certainly didn't want to go through that again.




< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 3/6/2014 9:37:12 AM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 10:51:36 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

~ FR ~

Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov are using words in different ways. The U.S. includes Crimea in its definition of Ukraine. Russia recognizes Crimea's status as an autonomous republic, attached to Ukraine but empowered to make its own decisions.

Crimea is ethnic Russian. Russian military support is "unofficial" (the troops are not wearing unit patches) and intended to prevent the unrest in Ukraine from spilling into Crimea. Now Crimea's parliament has voted to join Russia, and has set a referendum to be held in 10 days.

The U.S. has its panties in a twist over something that is half semantics and half none of its business.

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 3/6/2014 10:56:40 AM >

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 12:31:11 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
 Good point ....k


< Message edited by Owner59 -- 3/6/2014 12:32:14 PM >


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 2:09:02 PM   
Arturas


Posts: 3245
Status: offline
quote:



1) Crimea is ethnic Russian.
2) Russian military support is "unofficial" (the troops are not wearing unit patches) and intended to prevent the unrest in Ukraine from spilling into Crimea.
3) Now Crimea's parliament has voted to join Russia, and has set a referendum to be held in 10 days.
4) The U.S. has its panties in a twist over something that is half semantics and half none of its business.


Yes. Good points. Let's apply them to New York.

1) New York is ethnic Irish.
2) So, if Irish troops in unmarked uniforms show up to prevent green beer from spilling into New jersey and also to occupy New York government buildings then...
3) ...we should let New York then vote to join Ireland and ignore the troops who have taken those government buildings and encouraged the vote that did not take place until said troops entered New York.
4) Semantics is a good way to put it, Nazi Germanys troops were termed peacekeepers when they marched into Austria and of course many thought it was not our business. History makes it clear how foolish that view was.

How quickly we forget the lessons of the past and how easy it is to rationalize and ignore what we see with our own eyes.



< Message edited by Arturas -- 3/6/2014 2:11:11 PM >


_____________________________

"We master Our world."

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 2:18:33 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
First off, Crimea is ethnic Tartar and Tariq.

Second off if we were to substitute american samoa for new york, and therefore no actual federal reserves that are not operated by treaty.........

so we have an autonomous region, not a state.  And it has its own government, and its own 'federal reservations'.........then we got something like Crimea.


And if American Samoa decides to pack up and leave us, well its gonna be a bit more of a sticky wicket than people who dont know a fuckin thing about what they are talking about here make it out to be.

There would be much weeping and gnashing of teeth and recriminations and much ado.  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Arturas)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 2:28:51 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

How quickly we forget...

Apparently so, and what you've forgotten (or prefer to ignore) is the definition of analogy.

K.

(in reply to Arturas)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 2:49:39 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

First off, Crimea is ethnic Tartar and Tariq.

And second off, you're wrong. Crimea, by the latest figures I could find, is 58% Russian, 24% Ukrainian, and only 12% Crimean Tatar.

http://www.iccrimea.org/population.html
http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/Crimea/

K.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine - 3/6/2014 2:54:04 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Ok, thanks, I stand corrected on number one.

Looks like a huge influx in the early 1970s.  Wonder what was up with that?

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 3/6/2014 2:59:15 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Republican Position on the Ukraine Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109