Print

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

[Owlbread]

Ramzan Kadyrov, leader of the Chechen Republic, is ready to send aid and Chechen peacekeepers to Crimea to bolster the Russian forces. Russians who support the Crimean action, how does it feel to know that men who possibly beheaded, abused and tortured Russians in the wars are on their way to Crimea now to protect Russian civilians? Do you sense that, perhaps, something isn't quite right with this picture?

[PanH]

I fucking hate double standards. Russia is doing shit? Hit it with sanctions, kick it from g8. The problem is where are the same reaction when america did same shit, when nato did it,france, britain, israel did shit. Where was the same response for  Libya, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq and so many other in the past.

Note however, that for every one of these wars the US at least got EXPLICIT PERMISSION from the UN to act.

Not for the Iraq War, otherwise, yes.

[boki]

Yeah, right, the west started the wars in Libya and Yugoslavia. 

Dude, western supported opposition in libya, with weapons and all other crap. It is not in their interest to stop the violence, never was, and don't be naive to think otherwise.

About yugoslavia, it also supported the war, because western supported the breaking of country without any negotiations, without a referendum or anything. It supported a forced breaking, because if it did not, shit would not happen.

But keep believing that west is doing it to stop the war or for good, lol.

There are no good or bad guys out there, west is as shit or worst shit now than soviet union was.

[Sheb]

Yeah, we supported the rebels. But we did not create them. We just made sure they won as fast as possible and the result was pretty good compared to what it would have been otherwise.

As for Yugoslavia, are you really saying that Milosevic got less responsibility than the west here? We only started supporting states AFTER they broke from Yugoslavia and were in a murderous war. And again, we can afterward that things would probably have been worse without western intervention. Wait ten more years, and they'll all be integrated in the EU, in peace. (Well, Serbia might take a tad longer, what with Kosovo and all.)

[boki]

Yeah, we supported the rebels. But we did not create them. We just made sure they won as fast as possible and the result was pretty good compared to what it would have been otherwise.

As for Yugoslavia, are you really saying that Milosevic got less responsibility than the west here? We only started supporting states AFTER they broke from Yugoslavia and were in a murderous war. And again, we can afterward that things would probably have been worse without western intervention. Wait ten more years, and they'll all be integrated in the EU, in peace. (Well, Serbia might take a tad longer, what with Kosovo and all.)

WTF dude.
Libya is destroyed, you did not make anything faster or better. You supported rebels and armed them not because it was faster (and it was not faster), but because it is of your interest. Dont be so blind.  The country is on brink of civil war now that you fucked them up so hard. I can not believe that you can try to defend something like this.

I am not even talking about that idiot milosevic. I am talking about that west supported the breaking of the country. No, you did not come later to stop it, you were the ones to support it in the first place, than later try to fix things where you see it fit, but where you dont, you dont give a fuck. And generally destroyed another country and people in it.

[DJ]

We did a fine job dismantling Yugoslavia on our own, no need for an outside conspiracy. If there's anything to blame the West for, it's inaction. Like how the Srebrenica massacre was a direct result of the Dutch not doing what they promised to do.

[Kicior]

because it is of your interest.

Politics in a nutshell, nihil novi sub sole.

[Sheb]

Right, because it would have been so much better without air support and a second Syria.

[GlyphGryph]

Because Syria is pretty much the same exact situation, but sans Western intervention.

And none of that, any of it (exception of Iraq) is as bad as what Russia is doing right now.

Ukraine had stabilized.

This is not them picking sides on a civil war that's going to turn out shit no matter what - if it was, sure, I'd agree with you that it might be similar to the situations you've described.

It is them invading a territory to annex territory in a country that is teetering but regaining stability, because they can, and no more.

Because seriously, do you like how Syria has turned out? Because that's what happens when the West decides not to get involved.

[Sinistar]

Truth be told, Libya IS a mess now with the former-rebel groups refusing to turn their weapons in and such.

Not saying that the oppression before was better. It's pretty much like Iraq these days - different people, but country is still f-ed up.

[10ebbor10]

We did a fine job dismantling Yugoslavia on our own, no need for an outside conspiracy. If there's anything to blame the West for, it's inaction. Like how the Srebrenica massacre was a direct result of the Dutch not doing what they promised to do.

Well, it's a bit easy to blame the Dutch for the massacre. I mean, there were only 400 on them, armed with little more than handguns and almost out of ammunition, not even having the fuel to run their APC's. It's no wonder that they couldn't stop a 1500 men armed column supported by mortars and artillery.

Sure they could've tried, but it would only have gotten them killed, as well as all the civilians hiding in the compound.

[Sheb]

The question is not whether the place if fucked up, but whether it would have been worse without Western intervention.

[Dutchling]

Dutchbat fucked up, because they were undergunned, undermanned, lacked NATO support, lacked government support, and had an incompetent leader who also was a complete coward.

[boki]

Right, because it would have been so much better without air support and a second Syria.

No, it would be better if fucking west did not agree to accept a separation of a country the moment it was declared to stop all the possible shit that can happen.

Because Syria is pretty much the same exact situation, but sans Western intervention.

And none of that, any of it (exception of Iraq) is as bad as what Russia is doing right now.

Ukraine had stabilized.

This is not them picking sides on a civil war that's going to turn out shit no matter what - if it was, sure, I'd agree with you that it might be similar to the situations you've described.

It is them invading a territory to annex territory in a country that is teetering but regaining stability, because they can, and no more.

Because seriously, do you like how Syria has turned out? Because that's what happens when the West decides not to get involved.

Actually what rus is doing is not worse at the moment that anything west did in past. They did not killed anyone yet. And actually if a civil war would happen in ukraine same as syria, they stopped it maybe.

So no, it's not that bad yet.

Also you think syria rebels are not getting any support from west? They are. Weapons, money and other things, thats how it works.

[Sheb]

Supplies for rebels come mostly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other arabs states. Wouldn't change much. Also I don't see what recognizing breakaway countries has to do with Libya.

As for separation... Do you really think no intervention and officially keeping Yugoslavia together would have been preferable?