PDA

View Full Version : Banned again



Tricky Dicky
03-15-2014, 06:29 AM
I have had a posting blocked again by the Political Debate Forum. Since it concerns the possibility however remote of WWIII I reallly would like the chance to put foreard the novel concept ( to an American Audiance ) that:
(1) The Ukraine was never an independent nation, merely an invention of the Communists who contrary to received Wisdom were in fact initially anti-russian.
(2)They are in reality South Russians speaking a dialect of Russian and with their culture and religion slightly modified due to Polish occupation.
(3)Putin must send troops into the Ukraine otherwise the South Russian will for ever lost to the Russian people as a whole and simply absorbed into the ever expanding EU.
(4) If sanctions are implemented then Russia must start to divert its Oil and Gas supplies to meet the demands of an ever more important Asia.
(5) If Britain and America intervene militarily it will lead to WWIII

Now you may very well not like what I am saying and strongly disagree with it BUT YOU SHOULD AT LEAST DEBATE IT.
If not we, as I keep asserting, do not live in a frre society.

Codename Section
03-15-2014, 06:57 AM
Interesting. Too bad they didn't.

Green Arrow
03-15-2014, 07:38 AM
"WWIII" no longer carries the ominous terror it once did. Nearly every war after WWII was a world war.

Max Rockatansky
03-15-2014, 08:31 AM
"WWIII" no longer carries the ominous terror it once did. Nearly every war after WWII was a world war.

Disagreed. Simply because several worldly powers involved doesn't make it a world war.

Korea took place in Korea. Vietnam, Vietnam. Kuwait both Kuwait and Iraq. Not all over the world.

Green Arrow
03-15-2014, 08:35 AM
Disagreed. Simply because several worldly powers involved doesn't make it a world war.

Korea took place in Korea. Vietnam, Vietnam. Kuwait both Kuwait and Iraq. Not all over the world.

According to Merriam-Webster, a world war is simply a war involving many nations of the world, specifically most or all of the world's principle nations. It says nothing of geography.

Max Rockatansky
03-15-2014, 08:57 AM
According to Merriam-Webster, a world war is simply a war involving many nations of the world, specifically most or all of the world's principle nations. It says nothing of geography.

It specifically says "a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world; especially capitalized both Ws : either of two such wars of the first half of the 20th century". Nothing about Korea, Vietnam or Kuwait.

This definition popped up on Google:
a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. The name is commonly given to the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, although only the second of these was truly global.

Peter1469
03-15-2014, 11:10 AM
I assume that you are talking about another forum. We have a couple of threads ongoing about the current events in Ukraine.

You should start another or just jump into an existing one.

One point 1, I disagree, to a degree.

On point 2, Russia actually had its beginnings in Belarus. Yet Russia has moved east from there. Of course the Belarus government does what Russia wishes.

But I can expand more later- do you want me to move this to The Latest Happenings? If so just use the report feature and a Mod will take care of it.


I have had a posting blocked again by the Political Debate Forum. Since it concerns the possibility however remote of WWIII I reallly would like the chance to put foreard the novel concept ( to an American Audiance ) that:
(1) The Ukraine was never an independent nation, merely an invention of the Communists who contrary to received Wisdom were in fact initially anti-russian.
(2)They are in reality South Russians speaking a dialect of Russian and with their culture and religion slightly modified due to Polish occupation.
(3)Putin must send troops into the Ukraine otherwise the South Russian will for ever lost to the Russian people as a whole and simply absorbed into the ever expanding EU.
(4) If sanctions are implemented then Russia must start to divert its Oil and Gas supplies to meet the demands of an ever more important Asia.
(5) If Britain and America intervene militarily it will lead to WWIII

Now you may very well not like what I am saying and strongly disagree with it BUT YOU SHOULD AT LEAST DEBATE IT.
If not we, as I keep asserting, do not live in a frre society.

KC
03-15-2014, 11:43 AM
"WWIII" no longer carries the ominous terror it once did. Nearly every war after WWII was a world war.

The World Wars of the Twentieth century were global because of the vast colonies of the European belligerents. We will probably never see anything like it again.

Heyduke
03-15-2014, 02:34 PM
The World Wars of the Twentieth century were global because of the vast colonies of the European belligerents. We will probably never see anything like it again.

There was a Japanese AWOL guy who lived on a remote island in the South Pacific, and he continued to live off of fish and coconuts for decades thinking that WWII was still going on.

The template for World War has changed dramatically. Everything changed with the advent of nukes. Everything changed with the advent of television and media-based propaganda. Everything changed with satellite imagery. Everything changed again with the internet. And now, drones are changing everything all over again.

In a sense, WWIII has already begun. You just don't feel it if you're living in suburban America, watching Dancing with the Stars. You're like that Japanese guy sequestered on an island, except instead of thinking that the war never ended, you can't sense that the war has been raging for years and gaining momentum.

KC
03-15-2014, 03:06 PM
There was a Japanese AWOL guy who lived on a remote island in the South Pacific, and he continued to live off of fish and coconuts for decades thinking that WWII was still going on.

The template for World War has changed dramatically. Everything changed with the advent of nukes. Everything changed with the advent of television and media-based propaganda. Everything changed with satellite imagery. Everything changed again with the internet. And now, drones are changing everything all over again.

In a sense, WWIII has already begun. You just don't feel it if you're living in suburban America, watching Dancing with the Stars. You're like that Japanese guy sequestered on an island, except instead of thinking that the war never ended, you can't sense that the war has been raging for years and gaining momentum.

Today, war is most often carried out by a much more complex mixture of state and non-state actors. Not to discredit the role on non-state actors during the major wars of the first half of the Twentieth century, but these war were primarily fueled by the actions of state actors. Again, we will probably never see another thing like the two World Wars. As you say, globalization, technological advancements as well as conflicts involved in identity politics have changed, and thus the nature of war is different.

Green Arrow
03-15-2014, 04:00 PM
It specifically says "a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world; especiallycapitalized both Ws: either of two such wars of the first half of the 20th century". Nothing about Korea, Vietnam or Kuwait.

This definition popped up on Google:
a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. The name is commonly given to the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, although only the second of these was truly global.

I quoted the definition almost verbatim. Repeating it does not make it agree with you. The mention of WWI and WWII are as examples, not an exhaustive list, and anyway, common usage (wrongly) does not consider them "world wars."

Max Rockatansky
03-15-2014, 04:06 PM
I quoted the definition almost verbatim. Repeating it does not make it agree with you.
Awesome.

Bob
03-15-2014, 04:29 PM
I have had a posting blocked again by the Political Debate Forum. Since it concerns the possibility however remote of WWIII I reallly would like the chance to put foreard the novel concept ( to an American Audiance ) that:
(1) The Ukraine was never an independent nation, merely an invention of the Communists who contrary to received Wisdom were in fact initially anti-russian.
(2)They are in reality South Russians speaking a dialect of Russian and with their culture and religion slightly modified due to Polish occupation.
(3)Putin must send troops into the Ukraine otherwise the South Russian will for ever lost to the Russian people as a whole and simply absorbed into the ever expanding EU.
(4) If sanctions are implemented then Russia must start to divert its Oil and Gas supplies to meet the demands of an ever more important Asia.
(5) If Britain and America intervene militarily it will lead to WWIII

Now you may very well not like what I am saying and strongly disagree with it BUT YOU SHOULD AT LEAST DEBATE IT.
If not we, as I keep asserting, do not live in a frre society.

I am sure some may want to reply but to put it simply, I don't know enough about what you are talking about to say pro or con.

If Obama sanctions Russia for what takes place in Crimea Sunday, he is doing wrong. As the Russians keep insisting, each area ought to self decide. This may back fire on them should some parts of Russia bail out, such as Siberia.

I don't see Putin invading Ukraine. A mistake where he go that far. I could be wrong, but I think some high mountains divides Ukraine from Russia.

WW3, I doubt that very much. Not saying it can't happen, but just that I doubt it.

Bob
03-15-2014, 04:33 PM
The World Wars of the Twentieth century were global because of the vast colonies of the European belligerents. We will probably never see anything like it again.

There should be no dispute that both wars were created in Europe and later on the USA got involved, as is the case with many other nations that had not been involved.

Peter1469
03-15-2014, 07:55 PM
I am sure some may want to reply but to put it simply, I don't know enough about what you are talking about to say pro or con.

If Obama sanctions Russia for what takes place in Crimea Sunday, he is doing wrong. As the Russians keep insisting, each area ought to self decide. This may back fire on them should some parts of Russia bail out, such as Siberia.

I don't see Putin invading Ukraine. A mistake where he go that far. I could be wrong, but I think some high mountains divides Ukraine from Russia.

WW3, I doubt that very much. Not saying it can't happen, but just that I doubt it.

There are no high mountains separating Ukraine from Russia. The area is part of the European Plain. It is a natural invasion route and has been used as such for centuries. Russia wants (feels they need) Ukraine in their camp, or at least neutral to act as a buffer against invasion from the West. Their history speaks louder to them than current day realities.

KC
03-15-2014, 08:01 PM
There should be no dispute that both wars were created in Europe and later on the USA got involved, as is the case with many other nations that had not been involved.

No dispute here, although a major incentive to joining the war effort was the possibility of gaining colonial territories.

Max Rockatansky
03-16-2014, 07:32 AM
There are no high mountains separating Ukraine from Russia. The area is part of the European Plain. It is a natural invasion route and has been used as such for centuries. Russia wants (feels they need) Ukraine in their camp, or at least neutral to act as a buffer against invasion from the West. Their history speaks louder to them than current day realities.

While that is true, national paranoia doesn't justify invading another country and subjugating their people.

Green Arrow
03-16-2014, 07:42 AM
While that is true, national paranoia doesn't justify invading another country and subjugating their people.

Russia is subjugating the people of Crimea? How so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Max Rockatansky
03-16-2014, 08:02 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/dont-let-russia-abuse-crimean-history/article17357913/
As the international crisis over Crimea’s status escalates, the fate of the Crimean Tatars has been nearly absent from the discussion. The West has essentially accepted a manipulation of history: According to the Russian narrative, Crimea is a traditional Russian territory with an overwhelming Russian population, whimsically transferred to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. To accept this version is to negate the histories of non-Russian peoples, above all Crimean Tatars, and tacitly sanction Russian aggression, which may lead to consequences beyond Ukraine’s borders.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/crimea-ukraine-russia-un-resolution-104695.html
Russian forces backed by helicopter gunships and armored vehicles Saturday took control of a village near the border with Crimea on the eve of a referendum on whether the region should seek annexation by Moscow, Ukrainian officials said.

The action in Strilkove appeared to be the first move outside Crimea, where Russian forces have been in effective control since late last month. There were no reports of gunfire or injuries. The incident raises tensions already at a high level before Sunday's referendum.

Green Arrow
03-16-2014, 08:20 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/dont-let-russia-abuse-crimean-history/article17357913/
As the international crisis over Crimea’s status escalates, the fate of the Crimean Tatars has been nearly absent from the discussion. The West has essentially accepted a manipulation of history: According to the Russian narrative, Crimea is a traditional Russian territory with an overwhelming Russian population, whimsically transferred to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. To accept this version is to negate the histories of non-Russian peoples, above all Crimean Tatars, and tacitly sanction Russian aggression, which may lead to consequences beyond Ukraine’s borders.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/crimea-ukraine-russia-un-resolution-104695.html
Russian forces backed by helicopter gunships and armored vehicles Saturday took control of a village near the border with Crimea on the eve of a referendum on whether the region should seek annexation by Moscow, Ukrainian officials said.

The action in Strilkove appeared to be the first move outside Crimea, where Russian forces have been in effective control since late last month. There were no reports of gunfire or injuries. The incident raises tensions already at a high level before Sunday's referendum.




Nice article, but it doesn't answer my question. How is Russia, as in, 2014 Putin, oppressing the people of the Crimea this year?

Peter1469
03-16-2014, 10:47 AM
While that is true, national paranoia doesn't justify invading another country and subjugating their people.

Russia feels it is vital to its existence to have a buffer between it and the west. The west destabled Ukraine and fed Russian fears. Russia would accept a neutral Ukraine and doesn't need to occupy it- because then the West would be on its new doorstep. But they will never tolerate a very pro Western Ukraine. You can call that paranoia, but you can't find any allies to back you up with military force to force the Ukraine under Western dominance.

Max Rockatansky
03-16-2014, 12:49 PM
Russia feels it is vital to its existence to have a buffer between it and the west. The west destabled Ukraine and fed Russian fears. Russia would accept a neutral Ukraine and doesn't need to occupy it- because then the West would be on its new doorstep. But they will never tolerate a very pro Western Ukraine. You can call that paranoia, but you can't find any allies to back you up with military force to force the Ukraine under Western dominance.

How Russia "feels" doesn't justify violating international law.

The Ukraine wasn't destabilized by the West. They were divided by those who wanted to go with the 400lb gorilla next door and those who wanted to have a good economy.

The fucking Russians are paranoid. Their actions are destabilizing the region.

Peter1469
03-16-2014, 01:45 PM
Russia likely calculated its chances of getting away with violating international law and decided that it could absorb the consequences likely to occur.

The Orange Revolution and the revolution that forced out the last pro-Russian government were very much helped by Western intelligent agencies. Just as the other side was very much influenced by the FSB.

Russia is paranoid? They are basing their actions off geopolitical reality (no natural land buffers) and history (the numerous times that armies have marched east across that piece of land).

Americans tend to think others feel as safe as we are with two big oceans on our east and west and weak and benign powers to our south and north.

Part of Russia's calculus is that the West has no true vital interest at stake in Crimea and little interest in the Ukraine as a whole. For the west to risk a nuclear exchange over Crimea or Ukraine would be vastly more insane that what you accuse Russia of doing.


How Ru
ssia "feels" doesn't justify violating international law.

The Ukraine wasn't destabilized by the West. They were divided by those who wanted to go with the 400lb gorilla next door and those who wanted to have a good economy.

The fucking Russians are paranoid. Their actions are destabilizing the region.

kilgram
03-16-2014, 05:13 PM
I assume that you are talking about another forum. We have a couple of threads ongoing about the current events in Ukraine.

You should start another or just jump into an existing one.

One point 1, I disagree, to a degree.

On point 2, Russia actually had its beginnings in Belarus. Yet Russia has moved east from there. Of course the Belarus government does what Russia wishes.

But I can expand more later- do you want me to move this to The Latest Happenings? If so just use the report feature and a Mod will take care of it.
No, Russia comes from the Princes of Kiev (today's Ukraine).

Peter1469
03-16-2014, 05:34 PM
No, Russia comes from the Princes of Kiev (today's Ukraine).


Russia was created by groups of Vikings and their first capital city was Rus, in modern day Ukraine, but the bulk of their original territory ranged north into what is now Belarus and north west through the modern day Baltic states to the Baltic Sea. I don't believe that any of the modern Russia state was part of it.

Paperback Writer
03-16-2014, 05:39 PM
Russia violated no law. The particulars of their treaty with the Ukraine actually allows for this action, although I am certain it was hoped at the time never to result in this current situation.

Peter1469
03-16-2014, 05:47 PM
Russia violated no law. The particulars of their treaty with the Ukraine actually allows for this action, although I am certain it was hoped at the time never to result in this current situation.

I am not familiar enough with the relevant treaty, but I believe Russia has the right to introduce its military up to a certain level.

However, under the Ukrainian constitution, I believe, any vote for regional succession must occur at the national level.

In reality, Russia only wants a buffer against the West. They would be satisfied with a neutral Ukraine. They would consider a pro-Russian Ukraine to be a big win. I think the idea of annexing Crimea wasn't part of the original planning and the Russians may not even approve it should the vote turn out that way. But Russia certainly doesn't want much of the rest of Ukraine. It doesn't want any more large pockets of dissidents.

Green Arrow
03-16-2014, 06:45 PM
How Russia "feels" doesn't justify violating international law.

The Ukraine wasn't destabilized by the West. They were divided by those who wanted to go with the 400lb gorilla next door and those who wanted to have a good economy.

The fucking Russians are paranoid. Their actions are destabilizing the region.

Russia has not violated international law. As long as their troops stay in Crimea and do not exceed 25,000, the Russians are doing nothing wrong.

Mister D
03-16-2014, 07:32 PM
No, Russia comes from the Princes of Kiev (today's Ukraine).

A Viking dynasty ruled Kiev. Peter is correct. The Rus was the name applied to a Scandinavian population that settled in what became Russia. The term Russia comes from Rus. Of course this was not always a very popular view in modern Russia.

Max Rockatansky
03-16-2014, 07:35 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/15/russian-commandos-invade-ukraine.html
Putin appears to be using elite commandos—Spetsnaz—to spearhead his stealth move into Crimea and, perhaps, beyond.

Forget the military forces massed on the border and brief incursions into Ukrainian territory and airspace. Russia is invading Ukraine (http:// http//www.thedailybeast.com/topics/ukraine.html) in the shadows. The same special operations forces that appear to be rigging the election in Crimea are quietly escalating tensions inside other parts of eastern Ukraine.

This week the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) arrested a group of people led by a Ukrainian citizen who were said to be scoping out three of its most crucial military divisions in the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson.

In Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, press reports from the ground say that Russian provocateurs have attacked Ukrainians who organized anti-Russian street protests.

The forces behind these operations, according to U.S. officials briefed on the updates in Ukraine, are likely the Spetsnaz, the Russian military’s highly trained saboteurs, spies and special operations forces who may change the face—and the borders—of Ukraine without once showing the Russian flag on their uniforms. Or, for that matter, without wearing any particular uniforms at all.
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/03/15/russian-commandos-invade-ukraine/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1394922976970.cached.jpg

Paperback Writer
03-16-2014, 07:53 PM
And in other news the US is using drones over Crimea as of yesterday and is still sending them over Yemen and killing people at weddings...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/03/report-casts-light-us-drone-programme-201431582649552511.html

Green Arrow
03-16-2014, 07:55 PM
And in other news the US is using drones over Crimea as of yesterday and is still sending them over Yemen and killing people at weddings...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/03/report-casts-light-us-drone-programme-201431582649552511.html

But, but, Russia!

Peter1469
03-17-2014, 03:43 AM
Both what Russia is doing, and what the US is doing is the new face of war. I tend to think that we won't see anymore large scale force on force actions. The Battle of 73 Easting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting) was likely the last real tank battle in history.

Max Rockatansky
03-17-2014, 05:43 AM
"Never say never" as the saying goes, but I completely agree that heavy armor is less likely to be used in future conflicts. They still have a place as the French displayed in Mali, but massive tank battles are unlikely to occur at anytime in the near (20 year) future.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02456/french-mali_2456048b.jpg

Peter1469
03-17-2014, 06:37 PM
Yes and lots of French paratroopers got combat jumps. That has been a long time coming.

Max Rockatansky
03-17-2014, 07:56 PM
Yes and lots of French paratroopers got combat jumps. That has been a long time coming.

True. They certainly needed the practice! ;)

pjohns
03-22-2014, 05:30 PM
The Ukraine was never an independent nation...

Well, it was an independent nation, following the breakup of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago.

In fact, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum guaranteed its independence: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/03/19/the_budapest_memorandum_in_1994_russia_agreed_to_r espect_ukraine_s_borders.html

Bob
03-22-2014, 06:48 PM
Well, it was an independent nation, following the breakup of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago.

In fact, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum guaranteed its independence: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/03/19/the_budapest_memorandum_in_1994_russia_agreed_to_r espect_ukraine_s_borders.html

What is strange is how Slate reports this.

They call the overthrow of the Ukraine Government "the new government."

Yet all Crimea is guilty of is a new government.

Supposedly when a government is thrown out, per slate, that is the good government.

But a government where the public voted to get away from Ukraine is the bad government.

American politics is strange.

Bob
03-22-2014, 06:51 PM
Both what Russia is doing, and what the US is doing is the new face of war. I tend to think that we won't see anymore large scale force on force actions. The Battle of 73 Easting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting) was likely the last real tank battle in history.

General Fred Franks excellent book on that explains how it worked too.