Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

"Voted No because it would confound British politics and power" could be a reason. Indeed it is the main reason to vote No put out by the Labour party.

Frankie Boyle tweeted this a while ago. Every square-in-a-red-circle on the map represents a place in Glasgow where people who can't afford to eat anymore go to get food. A "food bank", as it were.

[Loud Whispers]

"Voted No because it would confound British politics and power" could be a reason. Indeed it is the main reason to vote No put out by the Labour party.

So add

• Voted no because it confounds British politics and power.

And

• Voted yes because it compounds EU politics and power.

To the list.

[Owlbread]

Again, this is my bias here but "Voted Yes because Britain will benefit from Scottish independence" is a good reason in my opinion. Though I wouldn't do a good job in selling it, I'm pretty sure that will be the case post-independence. If we succeed in Scotland in building a better, more progressive society with less austerity maybe people can look North and ask "why can't we have this?"

[Graknorke]

Again, this is my bias here but "Voted Yes because Britain will benefit from Scottish independence" is a good reason in my opinion. Though I wouldn't do a good job in selling it, I'm pretty sure that will be the case post-independence. If we succeed in Scotland in building a better, more progressive society with less austerity maybe people can look North and ask "why can't we have this?"

How's that better for Britain though?

[Owlbread]

How's that better for Britain though?

Because then maybe progressives in England could gain more momentum.

[scriver]

I didn't vote at all because I'm not Scottish.

Frankie Boyle tweeted this a while ago. Every square-in-a-red-circle on the map represents a place in Glasgow where people who can't afford to eat anymore go to get food. A "food bank", as it were.

I don't trust that Trussel Trust place. There's too many of them. Seems suspicious.

[Graknorke]

maybe progressives in England could gain more momentum.

Ho ho!
Funny joke.

[Loud Whispers]

How's that better for Britain though?

Because then maybe progressives in England could gain more momentum.

Far too many ifs for an end that might not even be any good. Not a good reason in my books.

*Also, Frankie Boyle is awesome. He doing any shows still?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Well, never if they're not dumb. You just don't declare war on Russia.

That mean that country that is attacked should not fight back because enemy is stronger and never cared to declare war. Weird logic.

[Duuvian]

Well, never if they're not dumb. You just don't declare war on Russia.

That mean that country that is attacked should not fight back because enemy is stronger and never cared to declare war. Weird logic.

War declaration by Ukraine would be a terrible idea strategically, it would open the floodgates. Obviously Ukraine is already not taking it sitting down, and though it may feel like slower than hoped progress declaring war would mean that instead of tanks sneaking across the border in small numbers the Ukrainian army would face organized tank and infantry divisions crossing the border while supported by an air force. The longer you have without that happening the better the situation your country will be in as long as foreign intervention isn't increased majorly to the point you may as well already be at war... at which point if you've shown patience and not instigation it would likely pull in parts of Eastern Europe on your side even if the rest of the EU doesn't like being pulled in through their NATO obligations.

Are the Russian tanks and equipment in Ukraine privately owned or owned by the Russian government? America has private mercenary groups like the infamous group formerly known as Blackwater. I was wondering if a similar organization could operate with Eastern Ukraine's rebels by providing heavy equipment. Sure they would be employing Russian people and veterans but not necessarily under the direct control of the government (though obviously the government could choose to limit them, ignore them or supply and even pay them) That doesn't make it ok and Russia should do what they can to seal the borders and feel free to ask for European help doing so if they would like it, I was just wondering how those tanks are organized and if there is a wealthy benefactor behind buying and supplying tanks or if it really is Putin's government as those new sanctions claim.

[Sinistar]

Ukraine conflict: Russia accused of shooting down jet

from BBC:

A Ukrainian security spokesman has accused Russia's air force of shooting down one of its jets while it was on a mission over Ukrainian territory.

The video above, from Wednesday, apparently shows another plane (Su-25 this time) being hit, but I for one can't see jack shit. Our resident Eastern Europeans would be welcome to translate what people in the video are saying or provide additional info on that matter.

In other Ukrainian news:
What's this about Azov Battalion and supposed neo-Nazi association?

That mean that country that is attacked should not fight back because enemy is stronger and never cared to declare war. Weird logic.

Come now, Ukrainian Ranger, you know this would be a terrible idea. Duuvian explained it nicely. It's not the case of not fighting back, but the case of picking your opponent wisely. I know you are frustrated, but this is for the best.

[mainiac]

Whelp it's official, the Neo-nazis care more about world peace then liberal democracies.  Good thing too, saves us having to get up off the coach.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Are the Russian tanks and equipment in Ukraine privately owned or owned by the Russian government?

Nope. Russia has no private companies like that. And even if it had - transporting tanks and artillery to Ukraine is possible only if Russian government helps with it.

Of cause we shouldn't declare war or engage hostile targets on Russian terriotory. That is stupid. But talking about anti-terrorism operation when we are under attack is a weird course of action.

Yesterday Ukrainian ground attack jet was shot down by a Russian fighter jet. At least that is what our ministry of defense says.  What should a country do if its official position that someone shot down one of it's planes? Shouldn't it result in some action? At least something as minor as sending a note of protest

[Teneb]

Did the plane cross into the russian side of the border? Because governments can shoot down unauthorized foreign aircraft with impunity.

[mainiac]

Did the plane cross into the russian side of the border? Because governments can shoot down unauthorized foreign aircraft with impunity.

They can?