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

jimeryan22

Wurzelbert wrote: »

so what, in your opinion, did happen to saddam’s chemical weapons? hidden? sold? given away? used up? destroyed…? certainly not under un supervision…that much we know.
and clinton is definitely a liar, but he had no reason to lie in order to defend w.

The weapons could well of gone to neighbouring country's, or have been destroyed, who knows.. No reason to lie to defend what..? All I said was he's a born liar, certainly not the type if bloke you'd leave alone around your misses let alone run a country.. And lads come on, I wasn't defending sadam bloody Hussein, Tyrant through and through

Wurzelbert

jimeryan22 wrote: »

[...]No reason to lie to defend what..?[...]

george w. "dubya" bush…

jimeryan22

Have a look..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-mercenaries-m16-and-ready-meals--evidence-of-western-involvement-or-something-far-less-controversial-9322948.html

SamHarris

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Yeah sadam used chemical weapons he'd got from us in the west...
The U.N bit not quite right... Pretty sure the main UN inspector said sadam had no WMD's, but then he, oh, you guessed it.. Suddenly decided to die..
As for "slick willy" Clinton.. Sure you'd want to be a mug to believe one word the man says.. Wouldn't lie straight in bed.. Pathological liar

No, he didnt get it from "us".

Some of the precursor materials were sold to him by German and Dutch companies (a lot of the chemicals have many uses besides as weapons and are sold routinely throughout the world.)

It's strange how determined people are to find a tenuous "Western connection" so as to absolve the third party of... well pretty much anything. I don't know if its an arrogance - "These people cannot do ANYTHING without some kind of Western help." Or if it's that they have chosen the West to be the "bad guys" and so look for the connection to reinforce their paradigm.

Regardless "got from the West" is entirely incorrect - he made them himself. In fact no country has bought chemical weapons from the West (or anyone else for that matter). It is about as controlled as the sale of nuclear weapons. Easy to make, regardless, chlorine is a common one that is used pretty much everywhere and therefore very easy to buy for "legitimate" purposes.

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not to mention he's also wanted by several countries on serious money laundering charges, along with his son, a dentist, who became one of the (ex)richest men in Ukraine in the space of a few years. Under Yanukovych's watch the treasury was emptied - they think it could be to the tune of 10's of billions, so far it's approx 1.8 billion and counting

He had fleets of classic cars, a galleon, gold collections, a private zoo, etc - on a yearly salary of what, 50,000 euros, and he later said these were "planted"

He fled to Russia

The Berkat police that are accused of shooting protesters? many of them allegedly fled to Russia and were quickly issued Russian passports

Crimean autonomous region of Ukraine? - it's now unilaterally Russian. The hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian protesters that finally got rid of a corrupt president? labelled fascists by much of the Russian media. The temporary interim leadership which has promised full free and fair elections with international oversight in May? labelled fascists by the Russian media.. and government. East of the country? now under a bizarre sudden armed insurrection in favor of.. Russia

Virtually every major power and developed nation supporting the Ukrainian protests, with the exception of .. you guessed it

When most of the international talks and deliberation on the future of Ukraine are being held with the leader of.. and again

Without labouring the point too much, if I was Ukrainian I would seriously be questioning my country's apparent "independence" and "sovereignty" over the last two decades

Speaking of which - that kind of money is more than enough to start a revolution in regions of a country as poor as Ukraine. I'm not saying it's all his cash doing it but I wouldn't doubt it would not take much for him to grease the wheels so to speak.

Does anyone know the gun laws in Ukraine? Seems like a whole heep of people own AK's. Doubt the Soviets were too hip with an always armed populace (despite their rhetoric) so if they are as slack as they look, it must be a pretty new development.

Something that has surprised me about this entire affair is how low brow and, frankly, ridiculously transparent Russian propaganda has been on this issue and yet the people who want to believe it are absolutely loving it. The Russians know this and the cynicism they display in using it is almost fun to watch. They had their cheerleaders saying for days that the armed men in Crimea were "self defense forces", then when the referendum was over just flippantly said "yeah they were our guys", knowing full well the people who believed them to begin with would continue to hold to the line in Eastern Ukraine regardless.

Their use of the word "Junta" being another. They have such low regard for their supporters at home and abroad that they could not even be bothered choosing a label that anyone who understood it's meaning would not instantly see as a fabrication. They might as well have said the "Monarchy in Kiev" and the same people would be parroting it back. I have no doubt they KNOW what Junta means and KNOW that whatever the Ukrainian government is, it's not that. I wonder if they were curious as to just how sheepish their followers have become?

Jonny7

SamHarris wrote: »

It's strange how determined people are to find a tenuous "Western connection" so as to absolve the third party of... well pretty much anything. I don't know if its an arrogance - "These people cannot do ANYTHING without some kind of Western help." Or if it's that they have chosen the West to be the "bad guys" and so look for the connection to reinforce their paradigm.

That's pretty much the culprit most of the time.

jimeryan22

SamHarris wrote: »

No, he didnt get it from "us".

Some of the precursor materials were sold to him by German and Dutch companies (a lot of the chemicals have many uses besides as weapons and are sold routinely throughout the world.)

It's strange how determined people are to find a tenuous "Western connection" so as to absolve the third party of... well pretty much anything. I don't know if its an arrogance - "These people cannot do ANYTHING without some kind of Western help." Or if it's that they have chosen the West to be the "bad guys" and so look for the connection to reinforce their paradigm.

Regardless "got from the West" is entirely incorrect - he made them himself. In fact no country has bought chemical weapons from the West (or anyone else for that matter). It is about as controlled as the sale of nuclear weapons. Easy to make, regardless, chlorine is a common one that is used pretty much everywhere and therefore very easy to buy for "legitimate" purposes.

Yes the materials were got from the west... And the technology... Not USA. Just in case you thought that's what I was saying..
Sugar coat it all you like pal... The CIA put feckin sadam in, armed him, Then decided they didn't want him there..

jimeryan22

Try reading instead of pretendinding you know it all...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

That's pretty much the culprit most of the time.

Stop labelling people..
I'm not anti west thank you very much
Neither anti Russia..

Jonny7

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Yes the materials were got from the west... And the technology... Not USA. Just in case you thought that's what I was saying..
Sugar coat it all you like pal... The CIA put feckin sadam in, armed him, Then decided they didn't want him there..

You are correct in a way

As far as precursors go, for example, the UK exported potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride to Syria - toothpaste

Many countries (inadvertently) supplied Iraq with precursors for it's chemical and biological weapon programs

Reagan went one step further - the US administration at the time wanted Iraq to win it's war against Iran, not a total victory, but enough to render the Iranians militarily impotent after the fight

The US supplied Iraqi labs with samples of viruses over several years - this is common enough as they are used to develop antidotes

However.. the White House signed off on these at a time when Iraq was known to have started using chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. Reagan also struck Iraq off the terrorist list which allowed the US to supply the country with all sorts of equipment used to make conventional weapons.. which Iraq later developed into delivery methods for Chem or Bio weapons

It's not black and white - but yes, the Reagan administration was very irresponsible in it's backing of Iraq against Iran in the eighties

The Cold War was grim and dirty, the stakes were incredibly high, there were many ugly examples like this.. from both sides. Obviously the Reagan admin believed they were choosing the lesser of two evils.

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

You are correct in a way

As far as precursors go, for example, the UK exported potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride to Syria - toothpaste

Many countries (inadvertently) supplied Iraq with precursors for it's chemical and biological weapon programs

Reagan went one step further - the US administration at the time wanted Iraq to win it's war against Iran, not a total victory, but enough to render the Iranians militarily impotent after the fight

The US supplied Iraqi labs with samples of viruses over several years - this is common enough as they are used to develop antidotes

However.. the White House signed off on these at a time when Iraq was known to have started using chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. Reagan also struck Iraq off the terrorist list which allowed the US to supply the country with all sorts of equipment used to make conventional weapons.. which Iraq later developed into delivery methods for Chem or Bio weapons

It's not black and white - but yes, the Reagan administration was very irresponsible in it's backing of Iraq against Iran in the eighties

The Cold War was grim and dirty, the stakes were incredibly high, there were many ugly examples like this.. from both sides. Obviously the Reagan admin believed they were choosing the lesser of two evils.

Thank you johny

Wurzelbert

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Have a look..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-mercenaries-m16-and-ready-meals--evidence-of-western-involvement-or-something-far-less-controversial-9322948.html

pretty sure it’s “something far less sinister”...and i fail to see how a jacket, mres and shell casings would prove anything regarding the presence of any nato forces in the area...there’s certainly lots of that stuff around... i am pretty sure, and certainly do hope so in the interest of world peace, that no british or other nato forces are there shooting at russians or pro-russian troops...that would be akin to a declaration of war and a recipe for escalation...but maybe that’s just what the powers that be want...

Lockstep

na1 wrote: »

US commited so many 'democtatic revolutions' all over the globe, so that is not funny anymore.

I'm not defending US foreign policy. At all. I'm not sure why you've brought this up.
Once again, Whataboutery.

na1 wrote: »

The brutality was coming from both sides, internet is full of evidences. But yes' if you're watching BBC & CNN you won't see it.

Ah yeah, the beacon of foreign imperialism that is the BBC or CNN. I'd take them over the guff I see on RT or Fox News anyday.
Meh.

na1 wrote: »

What is the difference? Really?
Next time if you get beaten by the New York police for participating in occupy wall street protest, explain them that you're not against the state, you are against the government, they should release you immediately and apologize.

I've never been beaten by cops before. Copsy know the difference between someone trying to change government policy and someone trying to overthrow the state.
That's why the vast majority of protesters have no trouble (in Ireland anyway). Because they're smart enough to know the difference between protesting and insurrection.

Lockstep

dnk wrote: »

No prob. I've heard it from a few rebels. They can lie. I didn't pull a trigger. Also another untrusted info. 5 helicopters actually. 3 Mi-24 and 2 Mi-8. Mi-8 were strong damaged by AK shooting.

Fair enough. Just to clarify, I'm not saying you're a liar or anything like that. It's just that personally, I'd need more concrete proof before I could accept such facts as legit myself.

dnk wrote: »

I meant that movements were used as a picture of soljers invided to Crimea. They are not.
It depends what means "backing". It can be from moral support till supply by soljers and weapon. At the moment no evidens that Russia supplied local militans by soljers and weapon.

Well, there is a lot of evidence that Russian soldiers were taking part in the occupation. Putin denied that the mysteriously well equipped but unidentified soldiers appeared everywhere but has since admitted that these were Russian troops.

dnk wrote: »

By law. Did Russia invided to Ukraine by military force? Any proof of invasion? No.

Yes, the LIttle Green Men.

dnk wrote: »

By democracy. Were people in Crimea splitout from Ukraine? Yes. Were they want to join to Russia? Yes.
What's wrong then?

An illegal referendum that's been rejected by the vast majority of the world and was held under armed occupation. I'd see major problems with that.

jimeryan22

Lockstep wrote: »

Fair enough. Just to clarify, I'm not saying you're a liar or anything like that. It's just that personally, I'd need more concrete proof before I could accept such facts as legit myself.



Well, there is a lot of evidence that Russian soldiers were taking part in the occupation. Putin denied that the mysteriously well equipped but unidentified soldiers appeared everywhere but has since admitted that these were Russian troops.



Yes, the LIttle Green Men.


An illegal referendum that's been rejected by the vast majority of the world and was held under armed occupation. I'd see major problems with that.

Back to the same old ****e... It's ok for the us but not for Russia.. It wasn't under the barrel of a gun. Nobody was forced to vote either way...
No hundreds or thousands were shot, droned... But yet it's still illegal..?
But us can invade/attack anybody they want anytime and it's ok..
The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Wish so many people would stop defending the us and allies, and in turn calling Russia this big evil monster
But of course you can't say anything against the us can ya..? You'll only be a Russian sympathiser or conspiracy theorist... What nonscence..

dnk

Lockstep wrote: »

Well, there is a lot of evidence that Russian soldiers were taking part in the occupation. Putin denied that the mysteriously well equipped but unidentified soldiers appeared everywhere but has since admitted that these were Russian troops.

As I said before Putin didn't. It's how converted his words by press. Personally I'm pretty sure that "polite green men" were not in Russian military forces. At least officially. But we are talking about law. For law important only formal facts.

Lockstep wrote: »

An illegal referendum that's been rejected by the vast majority of the world and was held under armed occupation. I'd see major problems with that.

The referendum means opinion of population can't be illegal. Call referendum "illegal" is a shame for "vast majority of the world" read USA and satellites.

jimeryan22

The referendum means opinion of population can't be illegal. Call referendum "illegal" is a shame for "vast majority of the world" read USA and satellites.


Said the same thing myself weeks ago...
The international community can keep calling it illegal etc... But the people of the region seem pretty happy.. Don't seem to be seeing Crimea melting down like Ukraine is...

Jonny7

dnk wrote: »

The referendum means opinion of population can't be illegal. Call referendum "illegal" is a shame for "vast majority of the world" read USA and satellites.

Labeling something a "referendum" doesn't make it so. Likewise elections.

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

Labeling something a "referendum" doesn't make it so. Likewise elections.

But how come everybody else in the world is complaining but the crimeans themselves johnny...?

Jonny7

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Said the same thing myself weeks ago...
The international community can keep calling it illegal etc... But the people of the region seem pretty happy.. Don't seem to be seeing Crimea melting down like Ukraine is...

That's because it is not recognised for obvious reasons. Same as this referendum being held on Sunday in Donetsk, the results of which will be whatever the organisers decide.

Jonny7

jimeryan22 wrote: »

But how come everybody else in the world is complaining but the crimeans themselves johnny...?

People are whimsical, at one point 34% wanted to join Russia, at another, 70%

In a referendum, voters are given time, and both sides are given equal opportunity to make their points

Crimea got a rushed referendum, with no international oversight, very questionable options with no option to remain with the status quo

It was done under occupation of a foreign military force, the man that called the referendum did so by taking parliament with armed men

All this as the country was under-going huge upheaval and under a large amount of propaganda, the first thing the Russians did was take down any Ukrainian media, the whole country was plastered with posters like this



The only reason a real referendum wasn't held is because Russia didn't want to take the risk of the people of Crimea voting to remain an autonomous region of Ukraine

Again, there's another "referendum" coming up in the East. An office is printing up to 3 million ballots with no international observers, no time given to both sides - another rush job with one aim

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

That's because it is not recognised for obvious reasons. Same as this referendum being held on Sunday in Donetsk, the results of which will be whatever the organisers decide.

Can't speak for Donetsk. But the crimeans seem happy enough, so that's good enough for me..

Lockstep

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Back to the same old ****e... It's ok for the us but not for Russia.. It wasn't under the barrel of a gun. Nobody was forced to vote either way...
No hundreds or thousands were shot, droned... But yet it's still illegal..?
But us can invade/attack anybody they want anytime and it's ok..
The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Wish so many people would stop defending the us and allies, and in turn calling Russia this big evil monster
But of course you can't say anything against the us can ya..? You'll only be a Russian sympathiser or conspiracy theorist... What nonscence..

dnk wrote: »

The referendum means opinion of population can't be illegal. Call referendum "illegal" is a shame for "vast majority of the world" read USA and satellites.

Lads, this isn't the Cold War. The world isn't divided into those who are pro-US and those who are pro-Russia. In this instance, Russia is flagrantly violating international law.

As it stands, Russia forced through a referendum which was not supported by any other member of the Security Council

This is echoed in the General Assembly where only 11 states support what Russia did which were mostly authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Belarus and Syria.

Russia forced through a referendum which was boycotted by Ukrainians and Tatars and where there are glaring doubts over its fairness , under occupation by foreign military forces and in the absence of independent observers .

dnk wrote: »

As I said before Putin didn't. It's how converted his words by press. Personally I'm pretty sure that "polite green men" were not in Russian military forces. At least officially. But we are talking about law. For law important only formal facts.

Yes, he did. He admitted that Russian troops were supporting the separatists, who were wearing RUssian uniforms, carrying Russian issue weapons and in trucks with Russian numberplates

Putin has since admitted that these were Russian troops so I'm baffled as to how you can cling so desperately to an alternative viewpoint.

jimeryan22

Lockstep wrote: »

Lads, this isn't the Cold War. The world isn't divided into those who are pro-US and those who are pro-Russia. In this instance, Russia is flagrantly violating international law.

As it stands, Russia forced through a referendum which was not supported by any other member of the Security Council

This is echoed in the General Assembly where only 11 states support what Russia did which were mostly authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Belarus and Syria.

Russia forced through a referendum which was boycotted by Ukrainians and Tatars and where there are glaring doubts over its fairness , under occupation by foreign military forces and in the absence of independent observers .


Yes, he did. He admitted that Russian troops were supporting the separatists, who were wearing RUssian uniforms, carrying Russian issue weapons and in trucks with Russian numberplates

Putin has since admitted that these were Russian troops so I'm baffled as to how you can cling so desperately to an alternative viewpoint.

The cold wars over...??? Ya could have fooled me... And it's the media that has made folks so black and white on the issue, seeing as it's them that gives the masses the information.. All I've seen from media and multiple threads on here is you either pro west or pro Russia. I personally would like as I've stated before for Ukraine or any other country to tell the rest of the world to piss of and mind their business..

Lockstep

jimeryan22 wrote: »

The cold wars over...??? Ya could have fooled me... And it's the media that has made folks so black and white on the issue, seeing as it's them that gives the masses the information.. All I've seen from media and multiple threads on here is you either pro west or pro Russia. I personally would like as I've stated before for Ukraine or any other country to tell the rest of the world to piss of and mind their business..

Yeah, because I oppose Russia's actions you were whinging about the US even though there is no correlation between the two.
Don't be so blinkered. One can criticise US foreign policy while criticizing Russia's actions, as many states have done.
It's not a dichotomy.

I agree that the rest of the world should leave Ukraine to sort it out. Sadly, Russia isn't having any of that.

Interestingly, a new poll shows that the vast majority of Ukrainians oppose the east seceding, even among Eastern Ukrainians and among Ukrainian Russian speakers. Although it seems that a slight majority of Crimeans support unification and nowhere near to the extent that the 'referendum' showed. I'm baffled as to why Putin and the Crimean authorities insisted on doing such a hamfisted job when they could have had a referendum with the same result they wanted without all the baggage.
Although it does show that most Ukrainians distrust Russia and are unhappy with the Kiev regime so it'll be interesting to see how the elections pan out.
source

jimeryan22

Lockstep wrote: »

Yeah, because I oppose Russia's actions you were whinging about the US even though there is no correlation between the two.
Don't be so blinkered. One can criticise US foreign policy while criticizing Russia's actions, as many states have done.
It's not a dichotomy.

I agree that the rest of the world should leave Ukraine to sort it out. Sadly, Russia isn't having any of that.

Interestingly, a new poll shows that the vast majority of Ukrainians oppose the east seceding, even among Eastern Ukrainians and among Ukrainian Russian speakers. Although it seems that a slight majority of Crimeans support unification and nowhere near to the extent that the 'referendum' showed. I'm baffled as to why Putin and the Crimean authorities insisted on doing such a hamfisted job when they could have had a referendum with the same result they wanted without all the baggage.
Although it does show that most Ukrainians distrust Russia and are unhappy with the Kiev regime so it'll be interesting to see how the elections pan out.
source

You really did get the wrong end of the stick... I wasn't "whinning " as you put it, about anything..
And if you had read the any of my posts so far, you would know I'm neither for Russia or US/EU, as by my last statement...
I'm completely neutral But would like less bull from both sides... Try reading in future instead of jumping to conclusions about what stance somebody is taking... And for all the so called west haters people keep mentioning... It's funny, as most are westerners... Does that not tell you something... People are sick of bull****
And know facts like.. Russia has done **** all to the world since the end of WW2... The same can't be said about the US... Fact...

Lemming

jimeryan22 wrote: »

People are sick of bull****
And know facts like.. Russia has done **** all to the world since the end of WW2... The same can't be said about the US... Fact...

Oh.
Really.
?

You don't know your Cold War era history then. Events in Crimea & Eastern Ukraine fit the MO of Soviet cold war geo-political espionage quite well.

jimeryan22

Lemming wrote: »

Oh.
Really.
?

You don't know your Cold War era history then. Events in Crimea & Eastern Ukraine fit the MO of Soviet cold war geo-political espionage quite well.

Sorry. I meant by which slaughtering millions and sending them to gulags...
The Cold War was as it's name.. Just postering..

Lemming

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Sorry. I meant by which slaughtering millions and sending them to gulags...
The Cold War was as it's name.. Just postering..

I'll rephrase what I said before in light of what you've just said about posturing.

You really don't know your Cold War era history.

jimeryan22

Lemming wrote: »

I'll rephrase what I said before in light of what you've just said about posturing.

You really don't know your Cold War era history.

Do I not... Pray tell me how many millions were slaughtered during the Cold War then my friend..? Please do..
I don't seem to remember them..?