Post deleted by User.
Russia And Ukraine
Russia and Ukraine
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »
If the majority of Crimeans voted to join Russia, what's the problem? The people have spoken.
*goes to find more information from a source that's reliable* since I don't know enough about this
*goes to find more information from a source that's reliable* since I don't know enough about this
Granted I only have the media's version of events as a basis, but it seems more like Crimeans voted to join Russia so they wouldn't invoke Russia's wrath.
If the vote was made in a fair society without Russia's troops on their doorstep, the result may have been very different.
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »
If the majority of Crimeans voted to join Russia, what's the problem? The people have spoken.
*goes to find more information from a source that's reliable* since I don't know enough about this
*goes to find more information from a source that's reliable* since I don't know enough about this
Kind of like the Civil war of the US, the states of the south tried to secede, not legal.
[+]
Election was a rigged farce designed to justify a land grab.
Unless you think an election under the threat of force constitutes fair. That isn't to say that based on everything I've read that a majority of Crimeans didn't want to rejoin the Russian federation.
Unless you think an election under the threat of force constitutes fair. That isn't to say that based on everything I've read that a majority of Crimeans didn't want to rejoin the Russian federation.
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »
If the majority of Crimeans voted to join Russia, what's the problem? The people have spoken.
*goes to find more information from a source that's reliable* since I don't know enough about this
*goes to find more information from a source that's reliable* since I don't know enough about this
I said BEFORE you post!!!
/frypan
[+]
It is interesting how people perceive the use of threats of physical invasion differently than threats of economic isolation/devastation.
It seems somewhat similar to how white collar crimes (fraud, embezzlement) are perceived differently than physical crimes (assault, battery).
It seems somewhat similar to how white collar crimes (fraud, embezzlement) are perceived differently than physical crimes (assault, battery).
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
It'll come back as soon as the U.S. and NATO quits its fear mongering to raise the economy through war.
This administration doesn't want to be on record for anything that will come back and bite them in the *** (see Obamacare is really Romneycare, and only Obama's brainchild when some little bit of good news comes out for it).
There has been so many "threats" issued by Obama that was never backed up that even US citizens are ignoring him. Well, except for the parrots on the left. They depend on him for their daily crackers.
Putin knows that Obama will never do anything serious. Obama is all talk, and he will always be known as all talk, no action. One of the weakest presidents of all time, even worse than William Henry Harrison in effectiveness.
What about Hoover?
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
It'll come back as soon as the U.S. and NATO quits its fear mongering to raise the economy through war.
This administration doesn't want to be on record for anything that will come back and bite them in the *** (see Obamacare is really Romneycare, and only Obama's brainchild when some little bit of good news comes out for it).
There has been so many "threats" issued by Obama that was never backed up that even US citizens are ignoring him. Well, except for the parrots on the left. They depend on him for their daily crackers.
Putin knows that Obama will never do anything serious. Obama is all talk, and he will always be known as all talk, no action. One of the weakest presidents of all time, even worse than William Henry Harrison in effectiveness.
What about Hoover?
Its a bad joke and an expression of his utter contempt for Obama. William Henry Harrison died after being in office for 32 days. Being that he made a correlation between a president that was in office for 32 days with one that is serving an 8yr term; the intent of the comment becomes obvious.
Though, Hoover is considered to be extremely ineffective as a president by the majority of historians both conservative and liberal. Ranking right up/down there with Harding.
[+]
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »
What about Hoover?
Why even respond to someone talking out of his ***?
Obama will be known for all talk, no action.
You mean the guy that made a ballsy move to kill Osama Bin Laden that worked? You know, instead of bringing him back alive for a trial like good Dems wanted. Or the guy who has droned more terrorists and innocent civs in the way of terrorist hunting? Let the bodies hit the floor, innocent or otherwise. Or the guy that got a coalition together for Operation:Capture Kill Gaddafi?
Obama is pretty adept at using force when he wants to. He had no qualms with killing Anwar al-Awlaki when human rights groups and liberals were hyperventilating about killing an American overseas. He kinda said whatever then blew that mofo into Paradise. Then he had lunch with his daughters.
As usual KN you're an idiot who thinks being a leader is using force at every turn because the only way America can project itself is with bombs and military-industrial might. Crushing your enemy with subterfuge and economic disruption is something some nobody named Sun Tzu understood 2500 years ago. He even saw it as superior to military force because war is expensive. But you'd think a fiscal savant like you would catch my drift.
I'm just sayin.
You mean the guy that made a ballsy move to kill Osama Bin Laden that worked? You know, instead of bringing him back alive for a trial like good Dems wanted. Or the guy who has droned more terrorists and innocent civs in the way of terrorist hunting? Let the bodies hit the floor, innocent or otherwise. Or the guy that got a coalition together for Operation:
Obama is pretty adept at using force when he wants to. He had no qualms with killing Anwar al-Awlaki when human rights groups and liberals were hyperventilating about killing an American overseas. He kinda said whatever then blew that mofo into Paradise. Then he had lunch with his daughters.
As usual KN you're an idiot who thinks being a leader is using force at every turn because the only way America can project itself is with bombs and military-industrial might. Crushing your enemy with subterfuge and economic disruption is something some nobody named Sun Tzu understood 2500 years ago. He even saw it as superior to military force because war is expensive. But you'd think a fiscal savant like you would catch my drift.
I'm just sayin.
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
I still don't understand how we can justify only spending .5% of our yearly budget on NASA...
[+]
That tweet should say we are still paying you for space travel, but if you don't want our money we will gladly pay someone else.
Oh yeah, forgot about the lack of our shuttles...
Don't get me wrong: I think the way we did it was horrible and we could definitely improve upon the program, but it brings a good reason as to why we should have our own...
Don't get me wrong: I think the way we did it was horrible and we could definitely improve upon the program, but it brings a good reason as to why we should have our own...
IIRC, they had originally increased the budget even though scrapping the shuttle program, effectively overall really increasing Nasa's budget as they didn't have to funnel all that money into a shuttle.
The shuttle program's cost was shared and also far lower than most people realize, the issue is that they haven't had the funding for the last 15 years that they needed to replace the shuttle program. The shuttles were designed in the 70's and flew for almost 30 years. In that time, there is NO reason we shouldn't have been able to afford and execute some kind of replacement program.
[+]
Agreed.
The intel 8085 can only get you so far.
The intel 8085 can only get you so far.
It's on NASA, they asked for a budget of 1 billion to fund the new shuttle, got it, came back and said actually we were wrong we need 2 billion, and got shut down. It doesn't matter, we are saving money paying third parties, only one of which is the Russians, and it's a permanent partnership solidified by numerous treaties and financial agreements between many countries. Non issue.
I'd give them 10 billion, but that's just me.
We've gotten back far more than we've put into Nasa.
We've gotten back far more than we've put into Nasa.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
It's on NASA, they asked for a budget of 1 billion to fund the new shuttle, got it, came back and said actually we were wrong we need 2 billion, and got shut down. It doesn't matter, we are saving money paying third parties, only one of which is the Russians, and it's a permanent partnership solidified by numerous treaties and financial agreements between many countries. Non issue.
They moved the goalposts as well, but it's not really a matter of our access to space, it's a matter of how we can justify spending 750+ billion on a war and not spend 2 billion on space.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Obama will be known for all talk, no action.
You mean the guy that made a ballsy move to kill Osama Bin Laden that worked? You know, instead of bringing him back alive for a trial like good Dems wanted. Or the guy who has droned more terrorists and innocent civs in the way of terrorist hunting? Let the bodies hit the floor, innocent or otherwise. Or the guy that got a coalition together for Operation:Capture Kill Gaddafi?
Obama is pretty adept at using force when he wants to. He had no qualms with killing Anwar al-Awlaki when human rights groups and liberals were hyperventilating about killing an American overseas. He kinda said whatever then blew that mofo into Paradise. Then he had lunch with his daughters.
As usual KN you're an idiot who thinks being a leader is using force at every turn because the only way America can project itself is with bombs and military-industrial might. Crushing your enemy with subterfuge and economic disruption is something some nobody named Sun Tzu understood 2500 years ago. He even saw it as superior to military force because war is expensive. But you'd think a fiscal savant like you would catch my drift.
I'm just sayin.
You mean the guy that made a ballsy move to kill Osama Bin Laden that worked? You know, instead of bringing him back alive for a trial like good Dems wanted. Or the guy who has droned more terrorists and innocent civs in the way of terrorist hunting? Let the bodies hit the floor, innocent or otherwise. Or the guy that got a coalition together for Operation:
Obama is pretty adept at using force when he wants to. He had no qualms with killing Anwar al-Awlaki when human rights groups and liberals were hyperventilating about killing an American overseas. He kinda said whatever then blew that mofo into Paradise. Then he had lunch with his daughters.
As usual KN you're an idiot who thinks being a leader is using force at every turn because the only way America can project itself is with bombs and military-industrial might. Crushing your enemy with subterfuge and economic disruption is something some nobody named Sun Tzu understood 2500 years ago. He even saw it as superior to military force because war is expensive. But you'd think a fiscal savant like you would catch my drift.
I'm just sayin.
You are making it sound like Obama personally ordered each strike on each target. But whatever.
You earned it.
And Obama isn't the commander-in-chief. You know, the head of the military who ultimately makes the final decision on what the armed forces do in conjunction with the DoD and Secretary of Defense.
Nope.
Nope.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
And Obama isn't the commander-in-chief. You know, the head of the military who ultimately makes the final decision on what the armed forces do in conjunction with the DoD and Secretary of Defense.
Nope.
Nope.
Where was the response to Syria when he opened his mouth, said "don't use chemical weapons on your own people or we are at war" and when they did, what did he do? He had Putin solve it.
Where is the response to Putin's annexation Crimea? Sanctions isn't doing anything, and now it looks like there is another annexation going on, and Obama is standing there with his thumb up his butt doing nothing yet again.
His only accomplishment is his deflection of the issues that go against him.
The US is almost done destroying all of Syria's chemical weapons, good job Taking the lead Obama while Putin wrote articles and did nothing and the neocons posted memes on the internet.
[+]
Read it slowly. He's the commander-in-chief. The generals do not operate independently of Obama and his administration. If you think being POTUS is a cakewalk, you're a bigger fool than I took you for.
Look at Syria right now. Short of committing to another long term exercise in 'democracy' did you really want America in that mess? We're already there in spirit and guns, simply under the table rather than overtly. Let Putin have his ports, Syria isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Assad can enjoy his shitstew and unfortunately the people of Syria will have to make do without American boots.
We got the WMDs and they are being dismantled. Syria will continue to burn. America 1, Russia 1, Syria 0.
As for Crimea? 'Murica has already put the screws on Putin and as much as his machismo bluster may entrance you he isn't winning right now. Go ahead and invade Eastern Ukraine, he'll only be driving his nails in deeper to inevitable ruination for his country. USSR he is not. Europe is uniting against Putin's regime and 'Murica will be the hero when NATO bolsters itself further.
Again, force isn't the only way to win. You seem eager to spend money you claim we don't have but yeah, ok.
Look at Syria right now. Short of committing to another long term exercise in 'democracy' did you really want America in that mess? We're already there in spirit and guns, simply under the table rather than overtly. Let Putin have his ports, Syria isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Assad can enjoy his shitstew and unfortunately the people of Syria will have to make do without American boots.
We got the WMDs and they are being dismantled. Syria will continue to burn. America 1, Russia 1, Syria 0.
As for Crimea? 'Murica has already put the screws on Putin and as much as his machismo bluster may entrance you he isn't winning right now. Go ahead and invade Eastern Ukraine, he'll only be driving his nails in deeper to inevitable ruination for his country. USSR he is not. Europe is uniting against Putin's regime and 'Murica will be the hero when NATO bolsters itself further.
Again, force isn't the only way to win. You seem eager to spend money you claim we don't have but yeah, ok.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Election was a rigged farce designed to justify a land grab.
Unless you think an election under the threat of force constitutes fair. That isn't to say that based on everything I've read that a majority of Crimeans didn't want to rejoin the Russian federation.
Unless you think an election under the threat of force constitutes fair. That isn't to say that based on everything I've read that a majority of Crimeans didn't want to rejoin the Russian federation.
Last I check Crimea has no issues, if it was rigged the problem would have been in Crimea not eastern Ukraine. Nato don't want to help anyone that isn't part of it's nerd club, Typical.
Ukraine isn't NATO. It's a buffer country between Putin's backyard and the West. You know, like Mexico is to the United States.
The Crimean election was all show. Putin wasn't going to respect the will of the people if it didn't go his way and to some credit he does have the backing of Russian nationals.
The Crimean election was all show. Putin wasn't going to respect the will of the people if it didn't go his way and to some credit he does have the backing of Russian nationals.
There was overwhelming evidence of double voting, not to mention the only two options called for secession, it was a completely illegitimate vote, but we will trade Crimea for not having to worry about Russia for 20 years.
Russian forces taken over many bases. Troops on the boarder of Ukraine. Solders in Crimea. By definition that would seem a 'vote' under duress. - And the rest of the world isnt rly helping them. They may have drawn a line, but it looks like they used erasable ink. So Ukraine doesn't appear to have much of a choice atm.
Quote:
Ukraine Invasion Unlikely as Russia Achieves Goals: General
Russia has staged tanks, fighter jets and an estimated 40,000 troops on its border with Ukraine. But don’t expect them to charge across and start a conventional war — Russia is already achieving what it wants by causing chaos.
That’s the read from a retired Army general.
“I think Putin’s smarter than to have an invasion,” Gen. Montgomery Meigs told NBC News, referring to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. “He has the whip hand with all his special-ops guys running around firing up the Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine.”
The Ukrainian government is trying to establish control over the east, where pro-Russian militants have seized government buildings in at least nine cities — a sort of slow-motion invasion from within.
On Wednesday, Ukraine sent troops into the city of Kramatorsk, near where “Russian sabotage groups” commandeered six armored personnel carriers and flew the Russian flag from them.
Secretary of State John Kerry will meet with his Russian, European and Ukrainian counterparts on Thursday in Geneva. Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman,
“We want the Russian to call for armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine to stand down and disarm,” said Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman. “Any destabilization that’s going on inside Ukraine right now is a direct result of Russian action there.”
Russia has already annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine. Putin’s goal now, according to Meigs: Further destabilize the country, making it impossible to govern and scaring Ukraine from pursuing closer ties with the West.
“Why risk the negatives of a conventional military fight if he can subvert the thing?” the general said. “Everything falls his way. And he scares the willies out of all the border countries.”
He mentioned Romania and Poland, plus the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
All five are NATO members. Ukraine is not. The secretary-general of NATO said Wednesday that it will fly more policing missions, beef up military training and possibly put ships in the Baltic Sea, and demanded that Russia stop supporting the militants.
As for eastern Ukraine: If Russia has its way, it will be “fractured politically, autonomous with a small ‘A,’ winking at the EU but never able to get out of the Soviet grip, the Russian grip,” Meigs said.
Source
Russia has staged tanks, fighter jets and an estimated 40,000 troops on its border with Ukraine. But don’t expect them to charge across and start a conventional war — Russia is already achieving what it wants by causing chaos.
That’s the read from a retired Army general.
“I think Putin’s smarter than to have an invasion,” Gen. Montgomery Meigs told NBC News, referring to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. “He has the whip hand with all his special-ops guys running around firing up the Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine.”
The Ukrainian government is trying to establish control over the east, where pro-Russian militants have seized government buildings in at least nine cities — a sort of slow-motion invasion from within.
On Wednesday, Ukraine sent troops into the city of Kramatorsk, near where “Russian sabotage groups” commandeered six armored personnel carriers and flew the Russian flag from them.
Secretary of State John Kerry will meet with his Russian, European and Ukrainian counterparts on Thursday in Geneva. Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman,
“We want the Russian to call for armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine to stand down and disarm,” said Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman. “Any destabilization that’s going on inside Ukraine right now is a direct result of Russian action there.”
Russia has already annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine. Putin’s goal now, according to Meigs: Further destabilize the country, making it impossible to govern and scaring Ukraine from pursuing closer ties with the West.
“Why risk the negatives of a conventional military fight if he can subvert the thing?” the general said. “Everything falls his way. And he scares the willies out of all the border countries.”
He mentioned Romania and Poland, plus the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
All five are NATO members. Ukraine is not. The secretary-general of NATO said Wednesday that it will fly more policing missions, beef up military training and possibly put ships in the Baltic Sea, and demanded that Russia stop supporting the militants.
As for eastern Ukraine: If Russia has its way, it will be “fractured politically, autonomous with a small ‘A,’ winking at the EU but never able to get out of the Soviet grip, the Russian grip,” Meigs said.
Source
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.