Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

Options
1…2728303233…134

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    WakeUp wrote: »
    The media failed in their duties to accurately report the facts or ask the right questions prior to the war which had they done may well have stopped it in its tracks. Especially in the States and Britain it was shameful they spun the war. At the beginning of the war if you questioned its justification in America you were either a coward or a traitor thats how brainwashed they were. If someone is claiming something so important that a country is about to get really fcked up over it whatever claims they make should be taken apart then taken apart again. This didnt happen. They failed. and of course we didnt get the full facts on the ground of the daily atrocities being carried out and countless other things. What came afterwards does not and cant change the fact that the media failed and they did fail they admit as much.

    I would argue had they reported correctly, or the vast majority of Americans felt no threat from Iraq, there is no "may well have stopped it in its tracks" but would most certainly would have.

    Without something like a genocide (and even then only a small "police action type would be acceptable to many), an attack on ones population or an allies from another power or a feeling of direct threat I think the days or gone when a Western population will accept a long, bloody war. If the goals are merely broadly political or, worse, economic a feeling of real threat must be created for it to be in any way accepted by the population at large.

    I wonder if Russians are different enough that mere national prestige and furthering the power of the state in and of itself would be enough to justify a large conflict. In this case there is obviously a great deal of talk of threats to their fellow people in Ukraine, but given the level of support in Russia for it I wonder if that spin is not more for the international stage than it is for the home crowd.

    I think it's entirely obvious an invasion of Eastern Ukraine is imminent. Looking at the recent shooting, which has been blown out of all proportion by the media in Russia, the demands the Russian government are making *that the Ukrainians cannot continue to acquise to for too much longer and the very recent past it is only a matter of time


  • Options
    #873
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    WakeUp wrote: »
    The media failed in their duties to accurately report the facts or ask the right questions prior to the war which had they done may well have stopped it in its tracks.

    I fully disagree, in my experience, most outlets did their job and used the correct language. Those most at "fault" were generally some US stations and tabloids

    I was heavily against the Iraq war, yet I've found over recent years there are still attempts by commentators to distort the truth about the war - namely to exaggerate the support for the war, the way the media dealt with it and the response of governments and politicians around the world

    It's as intellectually dishonest as those who do the opposite, completely scapegoating the establishment and those who led the US/UK to war


  • Options
    #874
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    I recall a huge amount of media opinion was against the Iraqi misadventure.

    Which is contrary to the current capabilities of Russian opposition media today.
    (148th on the world press freedom index).


  • Options
    #875
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,685 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    I regret to say I think that Vlad and Sergei are talking Russia, The Ukraine and a multi-national military-pact group into a war. I don't think they understand that the meaning of what's spoken of in the Russian tongue can be lost in translation, and that the definition of defending national interests is NOT seen to mean acting militarily in co-ordination with people claiming to be/have ethnic-Russian identity involved in rebellion and/or warfare within the national borders of another country with whom Russian has Ambassadorial and Diplomatic ties. I believe Vlad's thoughts are that he's fighting a legitimate covert war by proxy, something from the era of three decades ago.


  • Options
    #876
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    In March Moscow officials were openly asking the Ukrainian government to start shooting protesters because they some were armed..

    Now we have the complete reverse

    Talk about pushing brinksmanship to the very limit


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    Could I say hanged even. George talked to God, for F sake like, so Tony talking to him? I think it would be sporting to perhaps shoot the former, after all they put Hitler in prison too, and we all know what that led to.

    I reckon Killing them would only be stooping to their bloodthirsty level, a small prison cell with plenty of time to think about what they did would suffice.
    SamHarris wrote: »
    I would argue had they reported correctly, or the vast majority of Americans felt no threat from Iraq, there is no "may well have stopped it in its tracks" but would most certainly would have.

    Without something like a genocide (and even then only a small "police action type would be acceptable to many), an attack on ones population or an allies from another power or a feeling of direct threat I think the days or gone when a Western population will accept a long, bloody war. If the goals are merely broadly political or, worse, economic a feeling of real threat must be created for it to be in any way accepted by the population at large.

    You should only go to war in self defense all nations have the right to defend themselves its the only time in my eyes that fighting is justified and proper order. but wars of aggression for fabricated reasons there is no excuse for that. The threat too Americans was manufactured in the future if the Americans and British and the coalition of the willing lackies ever attempted to initiate such blatant savagery again based on lies I would hope people would see it for what it is and stop it before it begins. I cant see such a thing happening again either the way Iraq went down if something good is to come from the tragedy perhaps it is that.
    I wonder if Russians are different enough that mere national prestige and furthering the power of the state in and of itself would be enough to justify a large conflict. In this case there is obviously a great deal of talk of threats to their fellow people in Ukraine, but given the level of support in Russia for it I wonder if that spin is not more for the international stage than it is for the home crowd.

    I think it's entirely obvious an invasion of Eastern Ukraine is imminent. Looking at the recent shooting, which has been blown out of all proportion by the media in Russia, the demands the Russian government are making *that the Ukrainians cannot continue to acquise to for too much longer and the very recent past it is only a matter of time
    The Russian population has been whipped up into a bit of a frenzy are they in war mode I would say probably yes and that isnt a good thing. While Putin is claiming his cause is protecting Russians, Russian people themselves appear to be rather happy with the annexation of Crimea. I hope you are wrong about the coming invasion I really do but it would appear its on the cards and once it starts there is no telling where it will go I think there is a big storm coming if things continue on the path they are on.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I fully disagree, in my experience, most outlets did their job and used the correct language. Those most at "fault" were generally some US stations and tabloids

    I was heavily against the Iraq war, yet I've found over recent years there are still attempts by commentators to distort the truth about the war - namely to exaggerate the support for the war, the way the media dealt with it and the response of governments and politicians around the world

    It's as intellectually dishonest as those who do the opposite, completely scapegoating the establishment and those who led the US/UK to war

    Those responsible within the establishment and those who led the US/UK to war deserve a hell of a lot more than mere scapegoating that would be just for starters. The media admit themselves they failed. We should probably agree to disagree because I disagree with you and Im not going to change my mind and I dont think you will either.

    Simon Ostrovsky has been released unharmed after three days Im glad he is ok.
    http://time.com/76354/vice-journalist-ukraine-simon-ostrovsky/


  • Options
    #878
    Conas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭Conas


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    Blair falsified data saying there have WMDs whereas the original documents said they have no WMDs, Blair later said the article "no" was smudged out.

    However, the current conflict is likely to be a straight forward gunfight though it is ironic that the roots of the Crimean War, the resultant WW1 and WW11, Cold War, Reagan's War which toppled the USSR, has come perhaps full circle and could ignite conflicts for the next hundred years all over again.

    Always makes me laugh when I hear people talk about Reagan ending the Cold War. Reagan's legacy is one of a myth, and neocon counter propaganda. Always remember that the Cold War didn't end until 1991. He was an actor, who read off a script. The Cold War could and would have ended in the 1960s had Kennedy lived.

    Reagan funded and armed Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein, and then lets not get started about Iran-Contra. In the process tripled the National Debt, with all that spending. Little did we know that what he did, would eventually come back to haunt America on 9/11. Reagan's war as you call it, was a total disaster.

    Makes me also laugh also, when people in the US are comparing what Putin did in Crimea to what Hitler in the 1930s. Yet they had no problem going in and invading Grenada to protect Americans there (who turned out not to be in danger by the way) and killing people, and injuring countless others in the process.


  • Options
    #879
    marc_faber
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 48 ✭marc_faber


    Conas wrote: »
    Always makes me laugh when I hear people talk about Reagan ending the Cold War. Reagan's legacy is one of a myth, and neocon counter propaganda. Always remember that the Cold War didn't end until 1991. He was an actor, who read off a script. The Cold War could and would have ended in the 1960s had Kennedy lived.

    Reagan funded and armed Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein, and then lets not get started about Iran-Contra. In the process tripled the National Debt, with all that spending. Little did we know that what he did, would eventually come back to haunt America on 9/11. Reagan's war as you call it, was a total disaster.

    Makes me also laugh also, when people in the US are comparing what Putin did in Crimea to what Hitler in the 1930s. Yet they had no problem going in and invading Grenada to protect Americans there (who turned out not to be in danger by the way) and killing people, and injuring countless others in the process.


    regan spent like a drunken sailor but their is no doubt that he was serious about toppling the soviet union and went about it in a manner never seen before , reagans election was a true game changer in every sense , much of it negative

    those other issues you drag up ( iran contra , bin ladden etc ) are largely red herrings in the cold war context


  • Options
    #880
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    Conas wrote: »
    Always makes me laugh when I hear people talk about Reagan ending the Cold War. Reagan's legacy is one of a myth, and neocon counter propaganda. Always remember that the Cold War didn't end until 1991. He was an actor, who read off a script. The Cold War could and would have ended in the 1960s had Kennedy lived.

    Reagan funded and armed Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein, and then lets not get started about Iran-Contra. In the process tripled the National Debt, with all that spending. Little did we know that what he did, would eventually come back to haunt America on 9/11. Reagan's war as you call it, was a total disaster.

    Makes me also laugh also, when people in the US are comparing what Putin did in Crimea to what Hitler in the 1930s. Yet they had no problem going in and invading Grenada to protect Americans there (who turned out not to be in danger by the way) and killing people, and injuring countless others in the process.

    what do you mean? peacefully?
    You'd wonder what the intention was to bring down the soviet union really? why? what purpose? it seems it might have been easier to deal with one nation instead of loads of smaller countries or entities.


  • Options
    #881
    Conas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭Conas


    marc_faber wrote: »
    regan spent like a drunken sailor but their is no doubt that he was serious about toppling the soviet union and went about it in a manner never seen before , reagans election was a true game changer in every sense , much of it negative

    But they got nothing out of it though did they? When you really reflect on it, because they went straight into a Gulf War, and then all their attention turned to the Middle East, and they have been in two major wars there since 2001. One of them still not finished. USA always needs an enemy to justify, their crazy military and defence spending as far as I'm concerned.

    Now they have turned their attention back to Russia, and Putin. With people people like Victoria Nuland over there stirring up the pot, and causing trouble no doubt. It never ends, just keeps going around in a circle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    Conas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭Conas


    cerastes wrote: »
    what do you mean? peacefully?
    You'd wonder what the intention was to bring down the soviet union really? why? what purpose? it seems it might have been easier to deal with one nation instead of loads of smaller countries or entities.

    Yes, Kennedy signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet's in 1963, which was a great step towards peace. He wasn't going to go to Vietnam either, and a National Security Memorandum backs this up, and so does one of his closest advisers Ted Sorenson.

    Cold War, and Vietnam. Great for the men who profit from War.

    I support Putin, and the Russians with what's happening in Ukraine. Putin is a great man.


  • Options
    #883
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    Conas wrote: »
    Putin is a great man.

    He is something alright.

    "Great" wouldn't be a word most would use for him.


  • Options
    #884
    Conas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭Conas


    comongethappy wrote: »
    He is something alright.

    "Great" wouldn't be a word most would use for him.

    He's clever though. I bet you he's the kinda guy, who might look like he's behind. But in fact he'd always be two steps ahead. We Irish need to align ourselves more with the Russians, and Chinese. The world is tired of the Yanks warmongering.


  • Options
    #885
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    Conas wrote: »
    He's clever though. I bet you he's the kinda guy, who might look like he's behind. But in fact he'd always be two steps ahead. We Irish need to align ourselves more with the Russians, and Chinese. The world is tired of the Yanks warmongering.

    Nah.... I'm good.

    You are welcome to join them though!


  • Options
    #886
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    Conas wrote: »
    He's clever though. I bet you he's the kinda guy, who might look like he's behind. But in fact he'd always be two steps ahead. We Irish need to align ourselves more with the Russians, and Chinese. The world is tired of the Yanks warmongering.

    So the russians didnt war monger in afghanistan in the 1980s? A conflict which caused the deaths of more than a million people although on the plus side bled the soviet union dry in terms of finances.
    Or in Chechnya?
    Or currently in Syria or Crimea and many other places?


  • Options
    #887
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    realweirdo wrote: »
    So the russians didnt war monger in afghanistan in the 1980s? A conflict which caused the deaths of more than a million people although on the plus side bled the soviet union dry in terms of finances.
    Or in Chechnya?
    Or currently in Syria or Crimea and many other places?

    Russia is a peacefull place!

    It would never infiltrate a neighbouring state to sow insurrection!


  • Options
    #888
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    Conas wrote: »
    But they got nothing out of it though did they? When you really reflect on it, because they went straight into a Gulf War, and then all their attention turned to the Middle East, and they have been in two major wars there since 2001. One of them still not finished. USA always needs an enemy to justify, their crazy military and defence spending as far as I'm concerned.

    Now they have turned their attention back to Russia, and Putin. With people people like Victoria Nuland over there stirring up the pot, and causing trouble no doubt. It never ends, just keeps going around in a circle.

    Agreed, I would go as far to say the US has wanted a real war with Russia going back to the end of WW2.... General Patton wanted to attack Russia seeing as they had all the troops and gear already in Europe as an example


  • Options
    #889
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    Russias intervention in Syria and it can only be described as that given the massive amounts or arms they have given to Assad, has been disastrous, on a scale with and probably worse than the Iraq War. Anyone who thinks Putin is a good guy is naive.


  • Options
    #890
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    realweirdo wrote: »
    Russias intervention in Syria and it can only be described as that given the massive amounts or arms they have given to Assad, has been disastrous, on a scale with and probably worse than the Iraq War. Anyone who thinks Putin is a good guy is naive.

    And what about the us involvement in Syria...? Arming "al-nusra" I mean the rebels..?? That's ok is it..?


  • Options
    #891
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    And what about the us involvement in Syria...? Arming "al-nusra" I mean the rebels..?? That's ok is it..?

    How about, arming either side is wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    comongethappy wrote: »
    How about, arming either side is wrong.

    How about, that was my point


  • Options
    #893
    Conas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭Conas


    realweirdo wrote: »
    So the russians didnt war monger in afghanistan in the 1980s? A conflict which caused the deaths of more than a million people although on the plus side bled the soviet union dry in terms of finances.
    Or in Chechnya?
    Or currently in Syria or Crimea and many other places?

    What about Americans record.

    The Korean War,
    Vietnam War,
    Bay of Pigs,
    Invasion of Panama,
    Invasion of Grenada,
    Bombing Libya in the 1980s, and in 2011.
    Bombing Yugoslavia 1999
    Overthrowing an elected goverment in Iran in 1953.
    Drone strikes in Pakistan killing civilians
    Invading Iraq in 2003, on a pack of lies, killing 1 million Iraqis.
    Invading Afghanistan 2001 (still there)
    Torturing people in black sites.
    Gulf War 1991
    Supporting Israel: A country that has more resolutions passed against it at the UN, than any other country in the world.

    Americas record speaks for itself.


  • Options
    #894
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    And what about the us involvement in Syria...? Arming "al-nusra" I mean the rebels..?? That's ok is it..?

    What are you talking about? They have declared Al Nusra a terrorist organisation and imposed sanctions on them.

    They have given a very small amount of weapons which you could count on the fingers of two hands to the secular FSA who because they aren't screaming jihadists inevitably get ignored by people like you who are desperately looking for bogeymen in Syria.


  • Options
    #895
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    Conas wrote: »
    What about Americans record.

    The Korean War, - A UN force and an outstanding victory for democracy - you'd rather the whole of Korea was under the leadership of the nutter Kim il Young then?
    Vietnam War, - Helped delay the spread of communism in south east asia
    Bay of Pigs, - you think a communist Cuba is a good thing?
    Invasion of Panama, Noeriga - a dictator - small loss
    Invasion of Grenada,
    Bombing Libya in the 1980s, and in 2011. - To get rid of a mass murdering Gadaffi which 99% of Libyans wanted - success
    Bombing Yugoslavia 1999 - helped thwart a mass murdering Milosevic and was the beginning of the end of his genocidal regime
    Overthrowing an elected goverment in Iran in 1953. helped contain communism..
    Drone strikes in Pakistan killing civilians And Taliban extremists
    Invading Iraq in 2003, on a pack of lies, killing 1 million Iraqis. They didnt kill 1 million iraqis - whose lying now?
    Invading Afghanistan 2001 (still there) - an outstanding achievement given that it has released at least 10 million Afghan women from Taliban domination.
    Torturing people in black sites. Torturing mass murdering terrorists
    Gulf War 1991 - another outstanding achievement that was supported by UN resolutions/B]
    Supporting Israel: A country that has more resolutions passed against it at the UN, than any other country in the world. The only democracy in the middle east.

    Americas record speaks for itself.


    See my comments in bold


  • Options
    #896
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    realweirdo wrote: »
    What are you talking about? They have declared Al Nusra a terrorist organisation and imposed sanctions on them.

    They have given a very small amount of weapons which you could count on the fingers of two hands to the secular FSA who because they aren't screaming jihadists inevitably get ignored by people like you who are desperately looking for bogeymen in Syria.

    Read the article I posted and a few others... It's more than a handful of light weapons.. They've sarin gas and all or did you miss that too..?


  • Options
    #897
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    Read the article I posted and a few others... It's more than a handful of light weapons.. They've sarin gas and all or did you miss that too..?

    Ah again with the bogus sarin gas claims which every single credible expert accepts was carried out by the Assad regime. If you are referring to allegations that people were caught trying to smuggle sarin gas into syria from turkey, even the turks denied that was the case.

    Next you will be saying the recent Chlorine attack by Assad was carried out by the FSA using one of their choppers!


  • Options
    #898
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    realweirdo wrote: »
    Ah again with the bogus sarin gas claims which every single credible expert accepts was carried out by the Assad regime. If you are referring to allegations that people were caught trying to smuggle sarin gas into syria from turkey, even the turks denied that was the case.

    Next you will be saying the recent Chlorine attack by Assad was carried out by the FSA using one of their choppers!

    Seems denial ain't just a river in Egypt


  • Options
    #899
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE94409Z20130505?irpc=932

    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80007526/

    This has been covered many times and most experts agree (and Del Ponte is not a chermical weapons expert) that she is talking out her ar*e.

    The Assad regime refused time and time again to allow a proper investigation of most of the chemical attacks because they had something to hide. And its a matter of fact that they are in the process of destroying hundreds of tons of Sarin gas at the moment.


  • Options
    #900
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    realweirdo wrote: »
    Ah again with the bogus sarin gas claims which every single credible expert accepts was carried out by the Assad regime. If you are referring to allegations that people were caught trying to smuggle sarin gas into syria from turkey, even the turks denied that was the case.

    Next you will be saying the recent Chlorine attack by Assad was carried out by the FSA using one of their choppers!

    So the LA Times and Reuters are reporting bogus claims now..? Along with the UN's report as well..?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    realweirdo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 974 ✭✭✭realweirdo


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    So the LA Times and Reuters are reporting bogus claims now..? Along with the UN's report as well..?

    The LA times article was about anti tank weapons in the hands of moderate FSA...so what are you talking about? I see no mention of the US delivering weapons to Al Nusra in that article by the way. You are just making this up as you go along.

    As for Del Ponte, nothing has been heard from her since on this, she even says in that article there is no concrete evidence to back up her suspictions. In other words she's sitting in her armchair in Italy or Geneva or wherever and guessing, but has no proof.

    As opposed to the Assad regime which we now know for certain have over 1000 tons of chemical weapons.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement