Ukraine/Crimea

The entire article is junk, why would you post that here?

I disagree that the entire article is junk. It's a bit hyperbolic but many of the points seem valid to me.
You say it's a load of crap but all you offer as a counter is:

Here's what Christopher Hitchens had to say about him:


Of all the great things Hitchens has said over the years, you think that vacuous kiech is a worthy rebuttal?


Absolutely ludicrous and not a little ironic.
 
Sorry Robert, but it's mostly just crap. Is there some truth to this:
That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was nurtured as a weapon of Anglo-American policy (Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan) is suppressed.
Yes some, but also very biased and it's debatable as to how suppressed it is considering it's pretty much common knowledge.

Is there any truth to this?
In April the US state department noted that, following Nato's campaign in 2011, "Libya has become a terrorist safe haven".
Sure, Libya has become a terrorist haven, that's true. But if there was no intervention, Libya would have been a war zone AND a terrorist haven. Syria has shown us what inaction does. So yes there's some truth there but the important parts are what he left out. At best the merits of the Libyan intervention are debatable and not so matter of factly as he presents.

Is there any truth to this?
Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed.
Hardly any actually. The so-called "coup" was "masterminded" by Yanukovych himself when he trucked in the Berkut special police force from Crimea into Kiev and ordered them to open fire on demonstrators despite the official orders from the Interior minister who ordered them not to. That's why there's a warrant out for Yanukovych's arrest for the murder of a hundred or so Ukrainians. Did the CIA orchestrate that? That's pretty laughable. The idea that the US cares about the Russian naval base in Crimea is pretty funny too. Even if Ukraine joined NATO, which was and still is unlikely, those bases would surely stay where they are because 1) they present no real threat and 2) provide a steady source of income for Ukraine. And if say the worst case scenario came true, and Ukraine kicked out the Russian bases, is that really a big deal? Look on the map and you'd see that Russia could build new bases just across the sea on the Russian side. It's not like Russia would lose strategic value here, which means, there's little incentive for NATO to oust Russian naval bases in Crimea only so they can relocate a few hundred KMs to the East.

Sorry, but this is pure crap.
 
Here's what Christopher Hitchens had to say about him:
The Hitch was also in favour of the Iraq war. I disagree with Hitchens on whether we should throw our support blindly behind the program of US hegemony just because it's killing a lot of Muslims.
 
Is there any truth to this?Sure, Libya has become a terrorist haven, that's true. But if there was no intervention, Libya would have been a war zone AND a terrorist haven.
Libya would have been a whole state mostly peaceful with jihadis continuing to cause trouble in the East though likely suppressed by now while Al Qaeda members would still be safely behind bars and more people would still have electricity, clean water and sewage treatment. We backed nutcases and busted up the civilian infrastructure and we have turned that place into a total mess that we will have to deal with for years. This is no defense of Ghaddafi as a person, but the place was a better, more stable place to live for more people under him than under the chaos they have now.

Syria has shown us what inaction does.
Seems like our inaction is leading to the jihadists being defeated - despite our efforts to arm and train them - which doesn't count as inaction, but I know what you mean. Action, to you, is bombing the crap out of a country - destroy the village to save it kind of thing, like Iraq.

The so-called "coup" was "masterminded" by Yanukovych himself when he trucked in the Berkut special police force from Crimea into Kiev and ordered them to open fire on demonstrators despite the official orders from the Interior minister who ordered them not to. That's why there's a warrant out for Yanukovych's arrest for the murder of a hundred or so Ukrainians.
That is one parties narrative. One would hardly expect they would investigate this and find themselves guilty. And considering that the police had been holding back despite extreme violence from a small sector of the crowd and the fact that shooting at protesters is a well worn and time honoured way to escalate the situation - well, the Yanukovych orchestrated a coup against himself theory is not the least kooky conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

The idea that the US cares about the Russian naval base in Crimea is pretty funny too.
Because the neo-cons would never be that venal? Have you forgotten PNAC or did you think that the Cheneyites, after 30 years, would just down tools because there's a black president. Hegemony requires denying adversaries strategic territory.

Look on the map and you'd see that Russia could build new bases just across the sea on the Russian side. It's not like Russia would lose strategic value here, which means, there's little incentive for NATO to oust Russian naval bases in Crimea only so they can relocate a few hundred KMs to the East.

Good point. It's only 200 km away and naval bases are quick and cheap to build. Doubtless they have have a new one operational Thursday for about a grand. And then NATO can have the other one. That would be fair and no-one could complain about that.
 
It's funny how things change, isn't it. Just a couple of months ago our leaders was incensed at a government that wanted to jail protesters for setting fire to public buildings. Now they support a government that shoots protesters for trying to vote.
 
Libya would have been a whole state mostly peaceful with jihadis continuing to cause trouble in the East though likely suppressed by now while Al Qaeda members would still be safely behind bars and more people would still have electricity, clean water and sewage treatment. We backed nutcases and busted up the civilian infrastructure and we have turned that place into a total mess that we will have to deal with for years. This is no defense of Ghaddafi as a person, but the place was a better, more stable place to live for more people under him than under the chaos they have now.

It was a war of choice, fought on the credit card, with no real understanding of the country targeted and no clear exit plan, complicated by astonishing incompetence in following up after the dictator was toppled.
 
I'm still waiting for you to post the big names associated with Gazprom and Rosneft.

Well, there really isn't any point, is there, because we know those guys are corrupt, but US? Oh no, we are lilly white and pure. That's why it's OK to hate them and love us - because we are so much more virtuous.

Though, interestingly, I heard that the Harper government has decided not to sanction Rosneft and its owners. Oh we are so righteous.
 
It was a war of choice, fought on the credit card, with no real understanding of the country targeted and no clear exit plan, complicated by astonishing incompetence in following up after the dictator was toppled.

A familiar, old story.
 
It was a war of choice, fought on the credit card, with no real understanding of the country targeted and no clear exit plan, complicated by astonishing incompetence in following up after the dictator was toppled.
Sorry, when did we get on the topic of Iraq?
 
Well, there really isn't any point, is there, because we know those guys are corrupt, but US? Oh no, we are lilly white and pure. That's why it's OK to hate them and love us - because we are so much more virtuous.
I imagine that's how you think other people think, but that's, well, too cartoony. Black and white thinking is in the realm of the extreme thinker, most middle of the road thinkers think in grey. And that means people try to find the least corrupt or least evil. Those who seek out whatever color they think purity is are missing something in the head.
 
Anti-Maidan - quite clearly labelled. Here we have East Ukrainian civilians trying to dodge underneath the shells of the Ukranian army so they can be killed and photographed. My goodness, how devious they are.
The military operations against the eastern cities is a terror campaign. That is the point of shelling cities. Break the will of the people through terror. But we have to call it an "operation".
 
This still raises a wry smile:
http://www.theguardian.com/business...ob-board-ukraine-biggest-gas-producer-burisma
He has even found the time to join the board of a gas company called Burisma Holdings Ltd.

Never heard of it. Perhaps that's because it's a Ukrainian gas company; Ukraine's largest private gas producer, in fact. He's taking charge of the company's legal unit.

Isn't that a bit fishy? Why do you say that?

Because he's the vice-president's son! That's a coincidence. "This is totally based on merit," said Burisma's chairman, Alan Apter.

He doesn't sound very Ukrainian. He's American, as is the other new board member, Devon Archer.

Who? Devon Archer, who works with Hunter Biden at Rosemont Seneca partners, which is half owned by Rosemont Capital, a private equity firm founded by Archer and Christopher Heinz.

Who? Christopher Heinz … John Kerry's stepson.

I think Putin's propaganda people can take a long weekend; their work is being done for them. What do you mean?

Hasn't Joe Biden pledged to help Ukraine become more energy independent in the wake of its troubles with Russia? Well, yes.

And isn't Burisma, as a domestic producer, well positioned to profit from rising gas prices caused by the conflict? Possibly, but Hunter Biden is a salaried board member, not an investor. According to anonymous sources in the Wall Street Journal, neither Rosemont Seneca nor Rosemont Capital has made any financial investment in Burisma.

So it's not fishy at all? No one's saying that.

Do say: "Somebody needs to get involved in Ukraine's corporate governance, and it might as well be a clutch of rich, well-connected American dudes with weird first names."

Don't say: "Thanks, Dad."
 
Dozens of people, including women and children, were killed on Monday when a convoy carrying refugees was hit by rocket fire near the eastern city of Luhansk, a Ukrainian military spokesman said.

Government forces and pro-Russian rebels accused each other of the attack on the vehicles...

What a surprise.
 
Well, it seems Putin has decided that it's time to invade.
Russian 'Humanitarian' Trucks Roll Into Ukraine Accompanied by Military
I was hoping Putin was just posturing for a better negotiated deal. Looks like he wants it all. That's really too bad.

Now I must wonder, how's fluffs gonna spin this? It's probably one of 1) It's just a humanitarian mission, no invasion actually happening. or 2) the Russian invasion is for Ukraine's own good. My guess is both as those two options being mutually exclusive will not deter fluffy from using every argument he can.
 
Now I must wonder, how's fluffs gonna spin this?
I don't know. Are these the trucks that have been inspected by the red cross and Ukraine and confirmed to be carrying only humanitarian aid or are these other trucks? It was my understanding that all the trucks art the border had been inspected in the days they have been stuck there.

Maybe he's just taking advantage of the fact that Egypt just told the US to be nice to protesters in Ferguson and the US is re-bombing in Iraq. If Putin feeds the people in Donbas region then he IS supporting the rebels (it's what we would do for our rebels until we need to bomb them) and it does advantage them but that is not enough reason for Ukraine to demand the people there don't get fed. We would do no less I expect for our guys. Putting cities under siege is a war crime, after all. It's not good to let our friends commit war crimes.

Remember that the US just airlifted supplies to Yazidi people in Iraq and the US airlifted supplies to Berlin after WWII. Were those acts of war? It could be argued by ISIS and the USSR that they were ... but were they?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top