Print

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

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Guardian G.I.]

I'll give you that much - that they have little accountability for their actions. However, the PR disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq are the main reasons why we're pulling out. It's simply too difficult to stay in without becoming extremely unpopular and getting voted out. Unlike United Russia and Lukashenko's mafiosi the Tories, Democrats, Labour and Republicans get voted out on a regular basis.

Being voted out is not a punishment - the people in question very often continue to hold cushy posts and influence politics.

Sauce?

Also, any reason why NATO would back an unprovoked attack by one of its members.

Fear and prejudice. That is indeed why we can't have nice things.

I mean fear and prejudice is the main reason Sergarr's writing this drivel, not why NATO would back an Estonian attack on Russia.

It's hard for me to imagine Estonia attacking Russia anyway - they don't have a sizeable army to do it. In my opinion, any NATO attacks on Russia would involve the whole coalition and would definitely be planned and led by the USA.

[Helgoland]

Knit, he says that about every country.

Exceot Germany, oddly.

[Knit tie]

It's hard for me to imagine Estonia attacking Russia anyway - they don't have a sizeable army to do it. In my opinion, any NATO attacks on Russia would involve the whole coalition and would definitely be planned and led by the USA.

As I said, Sergarr's a loonie the level of UR. Please don't take him seriously.

Knit, he says that about every country.

Exceot Germany, oddly.

Okay, scratch Red-Scared, he's just a communist in denial then.

[Culise]

Because what we have here in this discussion is pro-Russians with ultrapatriotic Sergarr vs. pro-westerners with Red Scared leftists such as Sheb and Owlbread.

Do not expect any reason, they are all just running of fear and prejudice.

Are Sheb and I "Red-Scarfed Leftists" or "Red Scare Leftists"?

Well you gave us a good tirade on how Russia should be taken apart and the land given to the people some time ago, mate, and you sure as hell are leftist, so...

It's Owlbread you're talking to.  That's not him being either scared or scarfed; that's philosophical consistency.  He's openly supportive of Catalan and Scots freedom, and he's expressed support for dismantling America as well via support for independence movements in Cascadia, Hawai'i, the Republic of Lakotah, Aztlan, and so forth.  It's not Russia-specific, but rather another expression of a philosophical opposition to any large nations. 

EDIT: Ah, it's already been stated. >_<

[Owlbread]

Being voted out is not a punishment - the people in question very often continue to hold cushy posts and influence politics.

It's punishment for those who want to be in the driving seat - that includes the likes of Hilary Clinton, Obama, Miliband, Cameron, Clegg, Brown and so on. But yeah, the fact that they stay around and influence politics and sometimes get elected again is just a basic feature of democracy. As good as it would be to put Tony Blair in the slammer for the Iraq War shenanigans and the dodgy dossier, that sort of thing just won't happen over here sadly. That's a failing of our system, but it's not like Russia or the East has a better alternative these days.

Okay, scratch Red-Scared, he's just a communist in denial then.

Who said anything about being in denial? I say in jest, of course. Also, Sheb isn't really a Red, he's more like a pragmatic Green.

[Sergarr]

Sauce?

Also, any reason why NATO would back an unprovoked attack by one of its members.

USA. Iraq. Invasion. Occupation.

Do I really need to repeat this every time to get my point across?

[Owlbread]

USA. Iraq. Invasion. Occupation.

Do I really need to repeat this every time to get my point across?

Iraq is an Arab Muslim majority country with very few white people. Russia is a white, European Christian majority country with minorities from other religious and ethnic groups. There is a world of difference there. Iraq also occurred before the great financial collapse.

[mainiac]

Do I really need to repeat this every time to get my point across?

No you just actually need to have a point rather then just tossing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

[Darvi]

What they said.

Also, your response is remarkably dry without the requested sauce.

[Guardian G.I.]

USA. Iraq. Invasion. Occupation.

Do I really need to repeat this every time to get my point across?

Iraq is an Arab Muslim majority country with very few white people. Russia is a white, European Christian majority country with minorities from other religious and ethnic groups. There is a world of difference there. Iraq also occurred before the great financial collapse.

The definitions of whiteness, Christendom and Europeanism are not set in stone - for example, quite a lot of pro-Western Ukrainians think that Russians are actually Mongoloid Finno-Ugrs with a slave mentality. By applying some appropriate media coverage, any opposition to the war with Russia on the grounds of Russia being white, Christian and European can be easily dealt with. It has already happened at least twice during the past 200 years.

[Sergarr]

Being white didn't save USSR from being demonized as the spawn of hell.

The anti-Russian attituted leverage the same message about "USSR is evil" by equating Russia with USSR.

Against the perceived threat of red menace, the good god-fearing Christians will be ready to do everything to stop it.

To mainiac: NATO backed up the USA's absolutely unjust, unlawful invasion under a fake casus belli, then held the country occupied for 10 years (ten years) before leaving them as an artificial state that couldn't even keep it's military in a good shape after only three years.

If NATO can stop the perceived threat of Russia for good, it will do that.

[Baffler]

Being white didn't save USSR from being demonized as the spawn of hell.

The anti-Russian attituted leverage the same message about "USSR is evil" by equating Russia with USSR.

Against the perceived threat of red menace, the good god-fearing Christians will be ready to do everything to stop it.

To mainiac: NATO backed up the USA's absolutely unjust, unlawful invasion under a fake casus belli, then held the country occupied for 10 years (ten years) before leaving them as an artificial state that couldn't even keep it's military in a good shape after only three years.

If NATO can stop the perceived threat of Russia for good, it will do that.

I guess it was hard to see under all the red. Though many NATO signatories did indeed back the invasion, many did not. Most notably the French. It wasn't a NATO action. I'd also like to note that Iraq is no more artificial now than it was before the war, it just lacks a military dictator to hold it together.

[Sergarr]

USA is NATO's main force vastly exceeding all other force in NATO in power.

There's zero functional difference between USA's invasion and occupation and NATO's invasion and occupation.

[Culise]

Iraq is an Arab Muslim majority country with very few white people. Russia is a white, European Christian majority country with minorities from other religious and ethnic groups. There is a world of difference there. Iraq also occurred before the great financial collapse.

The definitions of whiteness, Christendom and Europeanism are not set in stone - for example, quite a lot of pro-Western Ukrainians think that Russians are actually Mongoloid Finno-Ugrs with a slave mentality. By applying some appropriate media coverage, any opposition to the war with Russia on the grounds of Russia being white, Christian and European can be easily dealt with. It has already happened at least twice during the past 200 years.

Indeed.  I don't buy the "European and white" racial argument at all.  The US didn't invade Honduras in 2009, didn't invade Syria in 2011, didn't invade Egypt in 2011 or 2014, didn't invade Yemen, didn't invade Tunisia, hasn't yet invaded Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, or Iran, has barely bothered even with ISIS, and only launched a cursory bombing campaign in Libya (albeit at French insistence).  These aren't white nations, according to American definitions (who specifically introduced "Hispanic" for that matter, where most Europeans would consider Spanish-descended groups as white). Iraq wasn't even a NATO action; this is hence why all the talk about the Iraq invasion used the "coalition of the willing" newspeak instead of the NATO operation in Afghanistan.

I also have no idea why Sergarr thinks the world is still stuck in the exact same political situation of over a decade ago, though, nor do I understand why he thinks Russia has the political and military weakness of even Hussein's Iraq.  There's a teeny, tiny power disparity between the armed forces of Estonia and Russia which I suspect would play a not-entirely-inconsiderable role in any consideration of a unilateral Estonian invasion of Russia. 

USA is NATO's main force vastly exceeding all other force in NATO in power.

There's zero functional difference between USA's invasion and occupation and NATO's invasion and occupation.

There's a huge difference as far as those NATO nations that didn't send forces to Iraq are concerned.  For one thing, they didn't throw away their lives on a fool's venture.

[Darvi]

US != NATO. If you're going to talk about the US, you call it the US, regardless of what groups it's the majority of.