Ukraine - what's really happenin

[Jaylan]

1. I thought the US only got UN approval for the first Iraq War, not the second.

2. Bush didn't let the UN weapons inspectors FINISH their job. He grew impatient and pushed for the invasion before the inspections were complete.

*I'm as right leaning as they come. So I'm not an automatic "Everything is Bush's fault" guy. But I do think he rushed us into Iraq the second time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
(Former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan explicitly said the invasion was NOT sanctioned by the UN)

There was no UN approval of the 2003 Iraq invasion. I have no idea where brad is getting his facts.

And yep, Bush didnt allow the UN inspectors to finish because he knew he was full of sh!t. Then once all the evidence was in, and NOTHING was found....well it was too late then. We were already fvking things up over there.

 

[VikingKing]

There is a lot of information in this thread. Bradd80 is on point.

I do think The United States should focus on fixing our own business first. However I always liked this quote "First they came for the
Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

Not that I like socialists at all but you get the point.

We had to fight the Vietnam war, and it was a proxy war. Same for Korea. If we allowed the Communists to take those two countries, now they have another foot hold, and will go to another country, and another. If you allow them to do this they will grow to strong. Its like the game risk.

We fought those two wars because we learned what happens if you don't fight. Like bradd80 mentioned about Hitler taking Roland, and Europe just allowed it, and Hitler kept going and made it all the way to France.

Then The United States had to come save Europe because you can't handle your own business and most of Europe are still ungrateful whiny little bivtches that hate The United States because your envious.

 

[speed dawg]

Iraq War #2 in 2003 was justified because the Iraqis under Saddam weren't living up to their end of the truce which ended the first Iraq war. They were not letting UN observers in to do their job and make sure their weapons programs had ended.

There was no UN approval of the 2003 Iraq invasion.....And yep, Bush didnt allow the UN inspectors to finish because he knew he was full of sh!t. Then once all the evidence was in, and NOTHING was found....well it was too late then. We were already fvking things up over there.

2. Bush didn't let the UN weapons inspectors FINISH their job. He grew impatient and pushed for the invasion before the inspections were complete......But I do think he rushed us into Iraq the second time.

If everyone would put their defenses down, I think all three of you will see that you agree except for this one issue. And your opinions are much closer to aligning than you think. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

I would assume (we'll never know for sure) there were no WMD, and no UN approval, but the threat was there because Iraq was not cooperating. So Bush did what a man does, he makes a decision. And HE has to live with the effects of it. Not you. That's part of being President and a leader. And in the end, it was probably the wrong move but there is plenty of logic there to back up why he did it. Case closed.

Obama is about to make a decision as well, and he'll likely be remembered for the ramifications of it.

 

[Mike32ct]

I get what you are saying and can understand that force may be necessary when there is non-compliance and other enforcement measures fail. But the US alone is not the Security Council. Wouldn't this have required another vote of the Security Council?

 

[Bokanovsky]

I
I think to compare what Putin is doing in Crimea to what the US did in Iraq or Afghanistan is wrong, there are big differences. The major difference is that the US launched its wars (a) with UN backing and (b) to prevent a country from carrying out an invasion. And the main problem with the enforceability of the UN's decrees is the veto power in the Security Council, which is held by countries like Russia and China - two of the worst murdering states in all of history.

No, the major difference is that there have been precisely zero casualties as a result of Russia's "invasion" of Crimea and over a million deaths directly attributable to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Any invasion can be justified or condemned; it's all a matter of perspective. In reality, both Russia and America invade other countries for much the same reasons (advancing their geo-political interests). The "official" reasons and justifications are just noise.

But speaking of Crimea, surely you will agree that it's a rather unusual "invasion" when you take over an entire region without firing a single shot, are welcomed by the local population and the "enemy" command and troops defect to your side? It's pretty obvious that the people of Crimea want nothing to do with the Ukrainian government in Kiev. The Russians in Crimea, who form the majority of the population there (and who ended up being part of Ukraine only because a commie named Khruschev decided to redraw internal Soviet borders 60 years ago) want to be independent from Ukraine just like Ukrainians want to be independent from Russia. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Bokanovsky]

^ Exact same line of reasoning the Nazis had right before World War II and the Serbs had in Croatia in 1991. You can't go around militarily pushing around other countries in an effort to absorb tiny pockets of your "brethren" which is really an excuse for creating a greater Russia.

Isn't that what the U.S. did when it annexed Texas from Mexico? Or how about more recently, when NATO invaded Serbia and, to use your language, "forcefully redrew borders" by carving out Kosovo? I'm sure you will find a way to rationalize the above two scenarios as somehow being different but it's the exact same thing. And that is why everyone laughs at Americans when they say that you can't invade another country under a "totally phoney pretext". Kettle, meet pot.

The only sensible way of dealing with the Crimea situation is to do what was done in Czechoslovakia after the collapse of the eastern block. Hold a referendum and let the locals decide if they want to be part of Russia, Ukraine or an independent state. I'm sure America will be in favour of such a democratic solution (sarcasm).

 

[Bible_Belt]

Why the elite that control the US want to antagonize Russia, I have no clue.

Right now Putin runs the media and the military. The mafia run everything else, including the courts and criminal justice system. Until that changes, Russia is going to be seen as being anti-business and therefore an enemy of the west.

 

[Bokanovsky]

How you can possibly compare the genocide that was being committed by the serbs in Kosovo to what's going on in Crimea is beyond me.

Genocide? The UN Court in Kosovo concluded in 2001 that there was no genocide committed by Serbian troops in Kosovo. There was a civil war...each side did some fairly nasty things to each other as is usually the case with civil wars (including the American Civil War - ever heard of Sherman's March to the Sea?) Kosovo Albanians were hardly innocent angels themselves. The U.S. sided with the Albanians for political reasons, whitewashed their war crimes, exaggerated the Serbs' war crimes and presto - a "just cause" for bombing the sh!t out of Serbian civilians.

Here's the difference in your examples:

1. Iraq war #1: iraq illegally invaded kuwait, outraging the world community. Kind of like what Russia is doing now. UN votes to kick Iraq out.

Kind of like what the U.S. did when it tired to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs? Or when they invaded China, along with the Europeans, during the Boxer rebellion? How about 20,000 U.S. troops invading the Dominican in 1965 to "contain communism"? How about the Vietnam War? Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada? How about the 1988 invasion of Panama (Operation "Just Cause") to ostensibly safeguard U.S. property and American lives (the exact same pretext as the Russians are using in Crimea)? The hypocrisy and double standards of the Americans are absolutely staggering.

The point is, Russians are acting like a bunch of nineteenth century barbarians with the way they're acting. The world community got together after WWII in order to prevent things like this from happening.

The Russian "barbarians" have not killed any civilians so far. The same cannot be said of the "civilized" Americans in Iraq and Vietnam.

As for referendums, Crimea already had one and the population voted in 1994 by an 80% majority to stay in the Ukraine.

Actually, it was 54%. But 1994 was 20 years ago. Things have changed since then (including the recent violent overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine and the passing of the anti-Russian language law as the first act of the new regime, which includes neo-nazi as some of its members). I don't see why Crimeans can't have another referendum.

 

[Bokanovsky]

The Russians would be stupid to not get involved in getting as much territory in Ukraine as they can, considering that the US has been trying to tighten the grip on Russia by backing coups against Russia-friendly regimes and building Missile Bases next to Russia's borders a la Cuban Missile Crisis. Why the elite that control the US want to antagonize Russia, I have no clue. Its certainly not in US interests to create more instability, but then again since when has the US government acted in US interests as a whole?

A lot of people benefit form creating instability and causing sh!t around the world. Think of the Department of Defence and CIA...Imagine how many bureaucrats, from desk jockeys all the way up to three star generals would no longer be needed if the U.S. stopped being an interventionist country?

 

[speed dawg]

Bokanovsky I was hoping you'd join this thread.

I don't think anyone would argue that the U.S. hasn't done some bad things. But we're talking about Russia here, and what Putin and his bunch are trying to accomplish. Really got nothing to do with the U.S. YET....and just because the U.S. does it, doesn't make it right.

I'm in the business of backing the side which is seemingly doing the RIGHT thing, the moral thing, the well, Christian thing. U.S. has done that more times than not, but corruption sneaks into even the best intentions. No doubt about that.

 

[Jaylan]

I dont understand how some people feel Russia is so in the right to "defend ethnic Russians in Crimea". They are only there because a generation or two ago, the USSR displaced the Tartars and others who were already there.

I guess thats the cool thing now. Displace natives, move your own people in, and years after the area becomes independent as a part of a separate nation, go back in and conquer it. Worked in Georgia...so I guess itll work here. I wonder what former soviet republic is next on the list.

All in all, invasion isnt foreign to the USA. We basically illegally took North American land we wanted from former European Empires. And lets not forget about the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I'm in the business of backing the side which is seemingly doing the RIGHT thing, the moral thing, the well, Christian thing. U.S. has done that more times than not, but corruption sneaks into even the best intentions. No doubt about that.

At one time, I would have agreed with you. Now, I'm not so sure. But forget the U.S. and let's talk about what Russia is doing. First, let's put aside the usual anti-Russian propaganda and fear-mongering you get from the mainstream media and look at what happened in Ukraine objectively.

1. In 2010, Yanukovich was elected as the president of Ukraine in an election that even foreign observers agreed was fair. He may have been disliked by many but the fact remains that he was a democratically elected president who got 49% of the popular vote (which is more than what Obama got). This is a fact.

2. Since 2011, the EU has been pushing Ukraine to sign a free trade "Association Agreement". In order to be accepted into the Eurozone, Ukraine had to comply with all sorts of conditions that could potentially be deleterious to the Ukrainian economy. Ultimately, Yanukovich deiced not to sign the Association Agreement with Europe and instead to pursue a free trade agreement with Russia, Belorus and Kazahstan. Regardless of whether this was a prudent decision, he had the right to make it as the elected president of Ukraine. That is also a fact.

3. Many people did not like this, which led to protests in Kiev. Although initially peaceful, the protests soon turned violent. A number of nationalist/neo-nazi groups became involved in street fights with the riot police. Actually, street fights is not exactly the right term. It was basically urban combat. The "protestors" were using firearms, as well as molotov ****tails. Not surprisingly, the cops shot back. A number of people died, including cops. Military Photos has some great pictures from Kiev that you will never see on CNN. In some of these pictures, you can clearly see "protesters" with pistols, sub-machine guns, etc. Here's what some of the "protesters" look like:

http://img.imgur.com/Xl7QGOm.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BemrWE8IUAAt-t2.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BemB94NCMAArTly.jpg:large
http://www.pixtr.org/photos/20140122139040679127974.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/gYFVh1D.jpg

Main link:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236005


3. On February 21, 2014, Yanukovich and the opposition signed an agreement pursuant to which Yanukovich effectively agreed to give up power and hold a new election. Riot police was recalled from Kiev.

4. Almost immediately, armed protestors captured the parliament and other government buildings in Kiev. Government buildings in many other cities were also captured. A new government was formed, which included a number of ministers from neo-nazi/nationalist parties. One of the first laws passed by the new government bans the use of Russian as a second official language (about half of all Ukrainians are either ethnically Russian or speak Russian as a first language).

5. The nationalist groups such as Svoboda and the Right Sector, which are now in government, are on record saying that they want to ethnically cleanse the Russian population.

6. The Russians in Crimea, who make up 60% of the region's population, are not very happy about this. The Crimea is an autonomous republic within the Ukraine and has its own parliament. The parliament passes a vote of no confidence for the Kiev-appointed government. They then appoint their own prime minister, who asks Russia for help.

7. Small numbers of Russian troops/contractors secure government buildings and military installations throughout Crimea. The Ukrainian army does not fight back. Many Ukrainian commanders and troops defect to the Russian side, including the admiral of the Ukrainian navy. Not a single shot is fired throughout the whole invasion. The local population is, by and large, happy about the presence of the Russian troops and wants them to stay.

Now again, let's try to be objective. Is Putin acting out of altruism or is he pursuing Russia's strategic objectives? The latter, obviously. But so do all nations, the U.S. first and foremost. And as far as wars and invasions go, this one is about as benign as they get. Not to mention, the actions of the Russians and are no less legitimate than the actions of the unelected government in Kiev who came to power as a result of a coup d'etat rather than an election.

Food for thought.

 

[Bokanovsky]

You mean the Cuba that tried to equip itself with nuclear weapons, and had them aimed at 90% of North American cities, including the one you live in? Shame on those Americans for trying to protect themselves, and their Canadian neighbors!

The United States, after overthrowing cruel dictators in all the places you mentioned, left those nations you mentioned. So when can we expect the Russians to leave Crimea?

That's exactly what I mean. You can rationalize just about any invasion if you try hard enough. "Brutal dictators", WMD's, the "Domino Effect", democracy, somebody sinking a ship under suspicious circumstances, etc etc.

(By the way, your recollection of history is a little foggy. The Bay of Pigs incident took place before the Cuban Missile Crisis, not after).

 

[Jaylan]

^^^^


Not to derail the thread....but this is exactly what is happening to white America at this point in time, not to mention nearly all of the western civilizations.

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

Lets not even get into that nor pretend White America and other Western Civilizations didnt displace natives themselves.

 

[Bokanovsky]

"Peaceful" protests in Ukraine. Note the protestors using a bulldozer (!) against the riot police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tt_ZsWB6UFY

 

[Jaylan]

^^^^

You are simply justifying what is happening to whites in their home countries based upon what their ancestors did. By that logic we may as well not care one whit about Africans and their problems since they sold their kin into slavery.


Additionally this does not negate that my point that this is currently happening in all Western nations today. Of course, even acknowledging that fact makes me evil.

:yawn:
Like I said, Im not getting into it.

Dont say you dont mean to derail, and then go ahead and try to derail. Create your own thread.

 

[Jaylan]

It is hilarious how you just won't allow a white person to be concerned about their race being displaced or their homelands being over-run.

Talk about racist.

:yawn: Believe what you want about what I wont allow.

What's hilarious is that are you so desperate to turn this into a race thread. Create your own thread if you want to talk about race yet again. But of course you know thats not allowed on these forums, so you decide to derail an unrelated thread and try to bait someone into that discussion.

Too bad its not working and Im withholding my opinion on the matter.

 

[Married Buried]

You brought up ethnicity and displacement per the quote below. I merely commented that is exactly what is happening in the US and other western nations.

Of course, in your racist hate you could not let such a comment pass without you attacking it because "whitey deserves it". Why does it bother you so much that someone observes this and points it out? Seriously. Why do you have so much hate in you for someone who sees this trend?


You are a perfect example of why liberals are idiots. They feel guilty for being successful and want to handcuff themselves until others catch up.....in the sad belief that they will no longer hate whitey. But just look at you.

You are so filled with hate, you can't even bring yourself to recognize that it is fact that your quote below equally applies to whites across western civilization. You simply justify it by thinking "they deserve it".

I thought we were all supposed to love each other after Obama was elected?

 

[Bible_Belt]

I thought we were all supposed to love each other after Obama was elected?

No, it's after Hillary is elected.

 

[Jaylan]

Danger is trying so hard to derail now haha.

No, it's after Hillary is elected.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: