Page 4 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

22 Feb 2015, 5:35 am

We did sign a convention on this. How soldiers should act toward civilians and other soldiers.

The hypothetical moral question still stands. Do you prevent the death of one innocent, or you work to destroy a capacity which is killings lot of innocents, even if some innocents may die in the process? The problem with that question is there are few certainties as far as outcomes.

Actually I would argue, in many cases this standard has been used against us. That is not to say we shouldn't still try to stick to it.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

22 Feb 2015, 6:04 am

Like I said,

Quote:
Unless, of course, you don't take a universal moral position, and see foreign lives as not being as important.


Which is evidently the case, hence the outrage when it emerged that some of the people the NSA are spying on are "American citizens". As if they can do what they like to foreigners, just so long as they leave Americans alone. But then, I don't get the statist mindset. If I had leglimency, I'd be very tempted to use it on people and rip the understanding of them from them.

What is so wrong with having a state of one, anyway? One guy, on their homestead, is really not going to be a threat. What is so wrong with letting them do what they want? They're not exactly hurting anyone. If they do, then you can justifiably wage war against them. Heh. Sounds like libertarianism.

If you let people have self-determination, you can't (well, you can, I suppose) draw an arbritary line and say "this far, no further; a group of 1 million is allowed self determination, but a group of 500 thousand is not". Whatever position you take, it ought to be consistent.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

22 Feb 2015, 6:16 am

Magneto wrote:
If you let people have self-determination, you can't (well, you can, I suppose) draw an arbritary line and say "this far, no further; a group of 1 million is allowed self determination, but a group of 500 thousand is not". Whatever position you take, it ought to be consistent.


I am being consistent. I'm saying self determination only applies to the people in an established, governed region.

A break away territory is up in the air, becuase just becuase people take up arms doesn't men they should be recognized as representative of what they claim.

Where did I say I don't find foreign lives aren't important? Straw-man. This tragic situation in Ukraine is killing lots of people. I am particularly heartened from account from someone who knows the regions and knows how divisive this has been.

This argument oh why don't you leave the poor rebel alone, they are not harming anyone. Is willfully naive, and inaccurate.

There were counter protests too. They were mobbed, most of them have been forced to leave with nothing.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

22 Feb 2015, 7:44 am

The protests in the east followed protests in Kiev.

The agreement for new elections was sidestepped, it was a coup, and the coup sent the army to the east, to shell, bomb, and occupy.

There were protesters, there was not a rebel force. That formed after Kiev lost any right to rule by bombing civilian cities. They took arms from local military stores, and captured a lot more from the Kiev troops.

The protesters were demanding to elect their local government, which Governors, Mayors, Chief of Police, and more were appointed by Kiev.

They were also the strongest block of the Party of Regions, which had elected the President the coup overthrew.

Consent of the governed and majority rule are not radical.

Dropping cluster bombs and white phosphorus on political protesters is radical, also a war crime.

Calls for genocide, killing every Russian speaker, abolishing the Russian language, were heard in the streets of Kiev, and in the Parliament. This came before protests in the east, and lead to it.

It was followed by a full scale military assault, in Kiev, only riot police had been used.

Even with Kiev's losses, they still occupy half of the land area of the eastern Oblasts. Millions of people have been driven from their homes.

The Jewish Coup, their American and British supporters, all belong at the end of a rope for crimes against humanity. Mass murder for political and economic reasons, the extermination of an ethnic minority, using banned weapons of war against civilians, committing acts of terror, Collective Punishment, and a lot more crimes that are hanging offenses.

Now that Kiev has been pushed back, fought to a cease fire, they openly talk of invading Crimea and killing every man woman and child. Other Russian speaking areas are occupied by the army.

Kiev wants arms and troops from NATO and America, to kill every Russian speaker. NATO has refused, the British and Americans are thinking about it.

Europe is waking up to being played for the fall guy in WWIII.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

22 Feb 2015, 8:20 am

Eh, it's just another weapon.

No big deal.

The people using them are the ones that should be focused on.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Feb 2015, 3:01 pm

@0_equals_true

Whether or not Yanukovych played the situation to his advantage doesn't matter as the EU did put on arbitrary deadline and did make it so they would have to limit relations with Russia. They point was to force this confrontation which has always been evident and easy to predict. Victoria Nuland said the US has invested $5b in "developing democracy" in Ukraine and they wanted to get their money's worth. The fact is that Yanukovych was democratically elected and then illegally overthrown. As you know Ukraine is divided by east and west and Yanukovych was the president from the east where he received like 90% of the vote. It really is an unnatural union when a country is so polarized. If you can't find issue by the illegal Kiev coup against Yanukovych then I don't see how you can turn around deny that same right to those in the east of country.

You can say stuff is unsubstantiated but you are still taking a position either way which just if not more unsubstantiated. The facts point to some outsider actor being behind the sniper attacks which targeted both protesters and Berkut, who had something to gain by doing that? 'And even if you blame Yanukovych and think his overthrow is legitimate, he merely sent riot police to quell protesters whereas the junta sent bombers, its indefensible and I think perfectly illustrates the cause of Novorossiyia.

You don't answer whether or not you support self determination for the Albanian Kosovars and if you do how you rectify it by denying this same right those in eastern Ukraine, you can't say the situations don't analogue each other because they do. The KLA was actually a terrorist group that targeted Serb civilians and received help from foreign mujaheddin whereas the NAF hasn't AFAIK targeted any civilians and on the contrary are actually protecting their people from aggression. How many civilians has Ukraine killed? Why doesn't what they're doing constitute ethnic cleansing against the Russian and Russified population of which the Kiev government is openly hostile to. The difference between Ukraine and Russia as far as extreme nationalism is that while it is a fringe element in Russia, they run with near impunity in Ukraine at least as far as their actions against Russians. They don't have parades and put up statues of Nazi leaders like Stepan Bandera. Their militias in the east are Ukraine's most effective fighting force and they have been given support by the government. Would you defend the slaughter of pro-Russian protesters in Odessa by extremists? They literally burned them to death and beat the ones that tried escaping to death, it was savagery yet the west turns its eye because it does not fit the narrative of this being some Russian invasion of poor little Ukraine who just wants to live in peace and harmony.

As for Georgia, no we know who fired first and it was Georgia. They shelled then invaded South Ossetia which had Russian peacekeepers as agreed to by Georgia-Russia-South Ossetia-North Ossetia which was negotiated at the end of their previous war. Russian soldiers were literally attacked and on the defensive but the international reaction or at least the reaction here in America was to condemn Russia for responding. The US's mindset and NATO by extension has never left its Cold War mindset, NATO was and remains to a large part an anti-Russian alliance and Russia has took its enlargement(at a time that they were down and out no less) as aggressive action and how else could you interpret it really? They literally wanted to put a missile shield in eastern Europe pointed at Russia, no way the the US would tolerate that if the shoe was on the other foot.

As for who supports who, why not go to the ballot box? You do not believe that those in eastern Ukraine would prefer to separate from their artificial union with the west of the country that hates them? Ukrainian nationalism which is dominant in the west of the country does not exist in the east, the ones that honor Stepen Bandera do not exist in the east of the country. Look at the map of previous elections, look at the map of the Russian and Ukrainian language, the divide is obvious and glaring. Kosovo was not a state, it was not a governed area, how is its independence legitimate and Novorossiyia's not? You can't escape that precedent. The demonstrations in eastern Ukraine did not start violently, they weren't any different than what went on in Kiev but that elicited a military response from the new coup government, they brought this war on themselves. Arbitrary is right, the only difference is realpolitik as that is all it is about. Self determination is an honorable thing and something I support wholeheartedly.

You seem upset that I don't condemn Russia and Putin more but that's not my place, I am American and I care about what America does first and foremost and the implications by giving heed to the talking points of American neoconservatives about foreign leaders is more American interventionism which I see as the real problem in the world today. Putin did stop the US from going to war with Bashar al-Assad(imagine ISIS with double the territory and on the border with Israel and Lebanon) and he gave refuge to Edward Snowden, while Russia may have its own interests there it overlaps with the real people of the US who oppose our growing police state. What happens in Russia is Russia's business not ours. I am not a neoconservative, Wilsonian, or a Trotskyite. I am very much a believer of the golden rule and that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, we need to get ourselves in order before we have any place to criticize somebody else. War is not in the best interest of American people, Ukraine has nothing to do with American domestic security. The US and Russia have far more in common(more than a lot of Americans are willing to admit) and we are far better off working to forge a better relationship together in order to achieve our mutually held interests. I find it pretty dismissive to say I am just being contrarian and that I'm a reactionary when I think I have been totally consistent. I find my positions to be to most morally correct and also the most in the interest of the American people which I do not feel is truly represented by our government.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

22 Feb 2015, 4:49 pm

Jacoby I'm not the one with the conspiracy theories, I haven't got my information from Russia Today. I have listened to people who actually lived there and know the region, and know Russia.

I have to say it is total utter nonsense what you say about the sniper, and an insult to people's intelligence. You believe what you want to believe, but don't pretend this is any more than black propaganda.

Your assessment of how divided it is isn't as accurate as you think. They have lived quite happily together for a long time, and Russian speaking areas extends much further west than the region in question.

The main point is I support self determination of the people as a whole, It is you that is pigeon-hole people branding them all as terrorists. This is straight out cynical. I'm only talking of the combatants, the ones acting like terrorists.

The key differnce, between the two "protests" is the level and nature of the violence.

Exactly why not go to the ballot, box? They have had a opportunity to participate in an election, and they will have further opportunities, if they stop fighting. You can't be in the EU unless you hold elections, regularly.

Ukraine has have a bigger turn over of leaders, than the Russian Federation, and Putin has dropped term limits. In Russia they merely have the illusion of plurality in the Duma. Genuine opposition parties are prevented from ruining.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

22 Feb 2015, 5:47 pm

Yes, Ukraine has elections. They also overthrow governments which they can vote out in a years time anyway, so their elections are kind of pointless.

The guys in the east aren't terrorists, they're soldiers of an unrecognised state. Big, big difference.

Self determination "for the region as a whole" is so vague as to be worse than useless. Who defines the region in question? Would you say the same about Spain, or Great Britain?

When did arbritary borders become sacrosanct?



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

22 Feb 2015, 5:48 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
We did sign a convention on this. How soldiers should act toward civilians and other soldiers.

The hypothetical moral question still stands. Do you prevent the death of one innocent, or you work to destroy a capacity which is killings lot of innocents, even if some innocents may die in the process? The problem with that question is there are few certainties as far as outcomes.

Actually I would argue, in many cases this standard has been used against us. That is not to say we shouldn't still try to stick to it.


These conventions and treaties are nice on paper, but when it really comes down to it people will not always follow them. I heard there was an agreement between Russia and the EU/US that all of them would uphold the sovereignty of Ukraine. That was back then and now nobody cares about the sovereignty of Ukraine.
Conventions are like stocks, they have value X today but they could be worthless tomorrow. No one knows. As they said in Wolf of Wall Street: "It is not real". I think that in reality people are too cynical, they just do what they want and see if they can get away with it.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

22 Feb 2015, 5:57 pm

Whist there was good to come out of the Edward Snowden revelations and Assange (Iraq ops not so much Cable gate), I find in a particularly ironic they choose countries like Russia, China or Ecuador to claim asylum in. China doesn't even hide it program. It is overt that not only is the internet censored, it is all monitored centrally. Russia has worked to ensure internet censorship in law, data retention, and monitoring, and has a capability no unlike NSA or GCHQ. Ecuador on the other hand not exactly journalist friendly. It put one in prison for calling the president a dictator, then sent another back to Belarus to the same fate for similar reasons.

Why not claims asylum in some state like Iceland?

Russia didn't prevent going into Syria. The strategic picture, namely Iran did, especially fueling tensions between Turkey/SA. Also there was a genuine reluctance to get drawn in after all the mistakes.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

22 Feb 2015, 6:01 pm

Magneto wrote:
The guys in the east aren't terrorists, they're soldiers of an unrecognised state. Big, big difference.

How would you know if they are representative? They hold the power. They also almost certainly not step aside for anyone, not even Poroshenko.

Having lived in Angola during the civil war, you have a romantic notion of rebels fighting for the people.



Last edited by 0_equals_true on 22 Feb 2015, 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

22 Feb 2015, 6:09 pm

Magneto wrote:
Would you say the same about Spain, or Great Britain?

Yes, devolution happened through a democratic process, and it is was ground breaking. Also the UK is a Union of countries. We are moving toward a more Federalist system, though different than US system or European federalism.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Feb 2015, 6:11 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Jacoby I'm not the one with the conspiracy theories, I haven't got my information from Russia Today. I have listened to people who actually lived there and know the region, and know Russia.

I have to say it is total utter nonsense what you say about the sniper, and an insult to people's intelligence. You believe what you want to believe, but don't pretend this is any more than black propaganda.

Your assessment of how divided it is isn't as accurate as you think. They have lived quite happily together for a long time, and Russian speaking areas extends much further west than the region in question.

The main point is I support self determination of the people as a whole, It is you that is pigeon-hole people branding them all as terrorists. This is straight out cynical. I'm only talking of the combatants, the ones acting like terrorists.

The key differnce, between the two "protests" is the level and nature of the violence.

Exactly why not go to the ballot, box? They have had a opportunity to participate in an election, and they will have further opportunities, if they stop fighting. You can't be in the EU unless you hold elections, regularly.

Ukraine has have a bigger turn over of leaders, than the Russian Federation, and Putin has dropped term limits. In Russia they merely have the illusion of plurality in the Duma. Genuine opposition parties are prevented from ruining.


And what is it that you believe? Nobody knows who the snipers were, they haven't been able to pin it on Yanukovych and it didn't make any sense for him to order it. What evidence do you have that says otherwise? It seems more like this is a fact that the west wants people to skip over rather dig into. The idea that it was a false flag has been discussed in high levels, its not crazy. To just dismiss it out of hand is just indicative of your bias, who cares if you know somebody who lived there at one time? Unless they were actually there why would they have any more idea of what happened than anyone else?



Image

What you say about the differences in the protests and your criteria for self determination are just nonsensical, not based in reality. The level and nature of the violence was different? Meaning what? They occupied and burned buildings, battled with government supporter, fought riot police, and then overthrew the government in Kiev. There were marauding gangs with Bandera supporters and other nationalist groups that back that seizure of power, defend these people if you want but they're nothing more than murderous thugs. You support self determination for people as a whole? What does that even mean? Kosovo! Kosovo! Kosovo! You won't answer it because you can't answer it, the precedent has been set. Look at that map and tell me there isn't a clear divide between east and west in that country, Donetsk and Luhansk wen't literally 90%+ for Yanukovych. You don't think they were upset when their democratically elected president was overthrown? Does Serbia have a right to deny Kosovo independence? We can go back further to the American revolution even, you are grasping at straws to say what I am essentially getting as Ukraine as whole having to agree to secession which is just morally wrong in my opinion. Lines in the sand don't matter, people do.

You can pretend like these rebels don't represent something, that they don't represent the true wishes of the people but do you think that Ukraine represents the true wishes of the rest of Ukraine when it comes to waging war? They've had wave after wave of conscription, enlisting men up to 60 years old. You'd think in the country of 45 million they'd find more than enough volunteers right? Why is that the people in these eastern regions see them as invaders, why do they tell the rebels of all their movements, why do they house and feed them, why do they do everything possible to sabotage the UAF and nationalist militias? It is the Ukrainians that have shelled cities, they are the ones that have used cluster bombs and white phosphorous in civilians areas. Who are the terrorists here? I think it is the side that is waging a war against the civilian population, the one that laying siege to towns and not letting in aid. Do terrorists show mercy? Because the NAF has, they have repeatedly and probably stupidly allowed these poor UAF draftees safe passage rather than annihilation only for the Ukrainians to turn around and attack them again. You literally say I am pigeon-holing people as terrorists and then call the rebels terrorists the next sentence, we are only talking about the combatants? Tell that to the civilians that Ukraine have killed, tell that to the 42 people they burned and beat to death in Odessa. These are people defending their homes and families.

Why not go to the ballot box is right? Why did they overthrow the government in Kiev when elections were scheduled? Do you really think this government in Kiev would of afforded this right of self determination to the people in eastern Ukraine? It was never on the table, they need that region far more than that region needs them as it is the economic engine of that country. Its about resources and western Ukraine doesn't have any. If you can overthrow a government then you can secede from one, especially one that is not legitimate elected. Let them vote now! Why not? Are you prepared to accept the result? The first thing the new government did was move to ban the Russian language, that is in part what set this whole thing off. They might of backed off that after realizing the storm that would ensue but this new government was anti-Russian from the very beginning which you might expect alienated the large percentage of the population.

Putin enjoys more domestic support than Obama and Cameron do in their respective countries, what "legitimate" opposition is being drown out in Russia? Groups like p**** Riot and FEMEN don't represent anything but small fringe, quelling even this dissent is wrong but does that make Putin anymore than a dictator than Obama who prosecutes whistleblowers at a rate unheard of in US history and with how our police so often respond to any form of protest? I don't believe there is much difference between the US and Russia in their mindsets, the US just has more power to project itself at this time. We talk about how machismo Putin is as if American politicians are any different, perhaps things are different in the UK but they aren't here.

Whats the end game tho really? I believe the ballot box should be the answer and the result should be respected, the government in Kiev can't win back those territories and the country has become so polarized now that it likely will never be able to pieced back again. Do you want NATO intervention? Do you think American weapons would make this conflict end? I think that is naive if you do believe that would make anything better, it would only cause more bloodshed and suffering but I guess that is the MO of American foreign policy. There should be a negotiated peace and peaceful divorce of the country if they choose it but that's not something the oligarchs or nationalists or the EU/US/NATO are prepared to allow, I think the rebels and the Russians would jump at the opportunity. Would you risk WWIII to ensure eastern Ukraine stays incorporated with the rest of the country which is openly hostile to them?



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

22 Feb 2015, 6:54 pm

You really think the only opposition to Putin is Femen and p**** riot? Ok that says it all really.

There is no credible alternative to Putin, becuase, there is no plurality. It is not allowed to happen. Ukraine may not have perfect plurality but it has more than Russia.

As the saying goes "There are many parties in the Duma, and they all United Russia".

I suggest up-rooting, and going to live in Russia, maybe you could get a job at RT. As someone who is used to having election where at least various policy is debated you might be disappointed. That is a novel concept there. Instead vague notions of strength an pseudo-stability are what you will get.

What you don't know won't hurt you, especially there 70 billion creamed of the Russian economy, and all the other nest-eggs to rest of his cronies.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Feb 2015, 7:19 pm

I think you are giving American politics way too much credit, how much policy is honestly debated and does the small amount of debate really make a difference when compared to the clash of personalities? Our media always tries to make it seem like we have this clear precise choice to make but to me it all seems the same. Washington is all a dog and pony show. Is their genuine opposition in America? You'd like to think so but the establishment of both parties are very similar the powers behind them honestly don't care who wins and they say as much. The game is rigged in their favor either way in both parties, they co-opt and warp and twist any genuine dissent in this country to the point is all just serves this two-party system. Guys like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich who represent actual change are mocked and pushed out of the way.

I'm not sure what the point is about Putin, I am not saying I want him as president of America or anything like that. He is a leader with flaws who does some very bad things just as our own government does here as well, we don't have any moral high ground to criticize really. So to hold up as some great dictator or the next Adolf Hitler is just laughable. I am much more concerned about our growing police state here in America than I am with whatever is going on in Russia, that's just the way it is. Lets not pretend like Putin hasn't done his country any good and that they have no reason to support him either, Russia under Yeltsin was not a pretty place and most Russians are cognizant of that. So stability might be a real concern for them when it comes to voting, is that wrong? Russia has played a role in limiting the US's overseas adventurism and has given refuge to Edward Snowden. Criticizing where Snowden and Assange sought asylum seems rather ignorant given that Snowden and Assange were both threatened with imprisonment, torture, and even execution by American officials, I think it makes perfect sense for them to seek refuge in countries out of reach of American influence, what other choice do they have? Snowden didn't even choose Russia, the US revoked his passport while he was in route to Ecuador because the point was to smear him as a Russian spy and traitor.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

23 Feb 2015, 6:35 am

Why is it so hard for people to believe that most Russians actually do support Putin? That the reason he keeps winning elections with such a large majority *is because the majority of people actually do vote for him*, rather than ballot stuffing?

Re. Scotland, I don't recall a UK wide referendum to set up the Scottish parliament. Surely, if self determination is vested in "the UK as a whole", they would have needed such?

Do you oppose Catalan independence, then, since you're using the exact same arguments that the Spanish government used to oppose their referendum (that decisions about secession must be made by the agreement of Spain as a whole)? Besides, why should you need the secede on the terms of the people you're seceding from?