Russia Discussion

Danny1982 said:
Do a re-count. Shouldn't be hard counting to one, should it?

I gave Paul as an example, and I don't recall me calling him "ideal". He's imo the least hypocritical of all the other politicians in the US.

But let's not make this about Paul. It's about the American people electing those presidents, so they shouldn't be totally "blameless" for the actions their presidents do. After all, those presidents represent the American people, don't they?
Click to expand...

The American people didn't elect George Bush in 2000...the electoral college did. Gore won the popular vote.
 
Last edited:
Lu Tze said:
The American people didn't elect George Bush...the electoral college did. Gore won the popular vote.
Click to expand...

And even that is still a big mystery, considering that Florida result (who determined in the end the winner) wasn't exactly clear. If I am not mistaken (that was a long time ago and I was very young) they had to recount but then the process got delayed and they were never recount.
 
Eboue said:
The Supreme Court stopped the recount from happening. The court voted along party lines.
Click to expand...

In which case, this is horrific corruption and effective rigging of an election surely? And as we've already ascertained in this thread, the ballot box is not the be all and end all of democracy, if those institutions of democracy do not act in a democratic fashion?
 
Danny1982 said:
Even worse, they re-elected him by a clear majority in 2004, after the invasion.
Click to expand...

A lot of the negatives about the Iraq war hadn't percolated down to the average voter by that point, or been explored fully by the government or the press.
 
africanspur said:
In which case, this is horrific corruption and effective rigging of an election surely? And as we've already ascertained in this thread, the ballot box is not the be all and end all of democracy, if those institutions of democracy do not act in a democratic fashion?
Click to expand...


Well yeah, the decision was roundly condemned by the left. But surely it says something for the strength of the institutions that it did not lead to an armed struggle.
 
Does anyone think that Ukraine can survive this?

I'm not just talking about Crimea, but Eastern regions too. In reality, the state has already ceased to properly exist. As we know, the government in Kiev has lost control of Crimea and the country's constitutional foundation is now worthless thanks to it being violated by both Kiev and Moscow. There is no constitutional basis for Crimea's referendum on secession but once it goes ahead and proves successful, there is no reason why the Russian ethnic majority areas in other parts of the country can't follow and demand their own. The question is how far will Kiev go to ensure that it keeps its grip on those areas, and how much resistance to Kiev (from ethnic Russians within Ukraine and the Russian state) might there eventually be?
 
Lu Tze said:
A lot of the negatives about the Iraq war hadn't percolated down to the average voter by that point, or been explored fully by the government or the press.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think it was too difficult for anybody to figure out that Bush has invaded a foreign country, and broken the international law by doing so, if that was what you meant by the "negatives". Truth is, most Americans don't really care about the international law.

By the way, the only reason the Americans are now so open about opposing the Iraq war, and they consider it a mistake, is because they didn't really gain anything out of it. Not because they feel that it was "morally the wrong thing to do", or because it "broke the international law".
 
Danny1982 said:
Well, I don't think it was too difficult for anybody to figure out that Bush has invaded a foreign country, and broken the international law by doing so, if that was what you meant by the "negatives". Truth is, most Americans don't really care about the international law.

By the way, the only reason the Americans are now so open about opposing the Iraq war, and they consider it a mistake, is because they didn't really gain anything out of it. Not because they feel that it was "morally the wrong thing to do", or because it "broke the international law".
Click to expand...

That is a massively unfair generalization.
 
Eboue said:
That is a massively unfair generalization.
Click to expand...
True. I'm talking generally here.

I don't want to lay all the blame on all Americans, but I don't think the Americans should talk about their government like it's some sort of foreign government they have no responsibility whatsoever for what it's doing.

If you want my real opinion about this issue, personally I actually think that the US is not a real democracy. IMO European countries are more democratic, because it offers more choice to the people, and the people in these countries have more say in what their governments do. However, even having said that, as long as you consider yourself a democracy, then you should at least be partly responsible for the actions of your government.
 
Danny1982 said:
Even worse, they re-elected him by a clear majority in 2004, after the invasion.
Click to expand...
I think that the problem in 2004 was Kerry. Instead of wanting to end the war, he somehow based his tactics in continuing the war. And of course, changing the commander in the middle of the war wasn't an option.

A better candidate from the Democratic Party who would have said that the war in Iraq is wrong and should finish ASAP, would have won the election IMO.
 
Danny1982 said:
True. I'm talking generally here.

I don't want to lay all the blame on all Americans, but I don't think the Americans should talk about their government like it's some sort of foreign government they have no responsibility whatsoever for what it's doing.

If you want my real opinion about this issue, personally I actually think that the US is not a real democracy. IMO European countries are more democratic, because it offers more choice to the people, and the people in these countries have more say in what their governments do. However, even having said that, as long as you consider yourself a democracy, then you should at least be partly responsible for the actions of your government.
Click to expand...


That's silly. Even though I would personally prefer a parliamentary system, any definition of democracy that would exclude the US is so small that it ceases to be an accurate definition.

I was not of voting age for either Bush election. I'm a non interventionist. I oppose drone strikes and propping up of dictators for economic reasons. I support reforms to the American electoral system. I vote regularly. I volunteered for President Obama's reelection campaign. I donate to groups that advance the causes I believe in.

I am not responsible for the actions of people I opposed at every turn. Sometimes in a democracy, the other guy wins.
 
rednev said:
Does anyone think that Ukraine can survive this?

I'm not just talking about Crimea, but Eastern regions too. In reality, the state has already ceased to properly exist. As we know, the government in Kiev has lost control of Crimea and the country's constitutional foundation is now worthless thanks to it being violated by both Kiev and Moscow. There is no constitutional basis for Crimea's referendum on secession but once it goes ahead and proves successful, there is no reason why the Russian ethnic majority areas in other parts of the country can't follow and demand their own. The question is how far will Kiev go to ensure that it keeps its grip on those areas, and how much resistance to Kiev (from ethnic Russians within Ukraine and the Russian state) might there eventually be?
Click to expand...

I think at the end of the day Crimea becomes part of Russia, along with some parts of the Eastern Ukraine, it will be followed by a few years of ethnic violence in all area of the former Ukraine against majority and minority populations. If it comes down to fighting between the new governemnt in Kiev and Russia, Russia wins hands down and gets all of the Ukraine. I would imagine that for now the new government might be happier to exist then not to exist.
 
Eboue said:
That's silly. Even though I would personally prefer a parliamentary system, any definition of democracy that would exclude the US is so small that it ceases to be an accurate definition.

I was not of voting age for either Bush election. I'm a non interventionist. I oppose drone strikes and propping up of dictators for economic reasons. I support reforms to the American electoral system. I vote regularly. I volunteered for President Obama's reelection campaign. I donate to groups that advance the causes I believe in.

I am not responsible for the actions of people I opposed at every turn. Sometimes in a democracy, the other guy wins.
Click to expand...
Democracy is not white and black. There are degrees of democracy.

I didn't say the US is not a democracy, but compared to some European countries I think the US is less of a democracy than them.

Nobody is holding you "personally" responsible for everything the US does, but when you are trying to give people from other countries lessons in international laws, being yourself from a country that broke the international law more than any other country in the last few decades, then you are bound to get the "tell that to your government first", and you shouldn't be surprised about it.
 
rednev said:
Does anyone think that Ukraine can survive this?

I'm not just talking about Crimea, but Eastern regions too. In reality, the state has already ceased to properly exist. As we know, the government in Kiev has lost control of Crimea and the country's constitutional foundation is now worthless thanks to it being violated by both Kiev and Moscow. There is no constitutional basis for Crimea's referendum on secession but once it goes ahead and proves successful, there is no reason why the Russian ethnic majority areas in other parts of the country can't follow and demand their own. The question is how far will Kiev go to ensure that it keeps its grip on those areas, and how much resistance to Kiev (from ethnic Russians within Ukraine and the Russian state) might there eventually be?
Click to expand...
I think if the people there choose to join Russia, then there is very little Kiev can do.

However, if Crimea and some other areas in Eastern Ukraine choose to join Russia, then I can see Ukraine getting in serious (economic) trouble, and that could lead to further problems in the future.
 
This is all it's been for the last 5 pages. No actual arguments for Putin's intervention. Just ad hominem attacks for people criticizing it. It's been entirely worthwhile.
 
Sir Matt said:
This is all it's been for the last 5 pages. No actual arguments for Putin's intervention. Just ad hominem attacks for people criticizing it. It's been entirely worthwhile.
Click to expand...
So you think too that the Russian tanks are flooding Crimea/Ukraine?
 
Danny1982 said:
Democracy is not white and black. There are degrees of democracy.

I didn't say the US is not a democracy, but compared to some European countries I think the US is less of a democracy than them.

Nobody is holding you "personally" responsible for everything the US does, but when you are trying to give people from other countries lessons in international laws, being yourself from a country that broke the international law more than any other country in the last few decades, then you are bound to get the "tell that to your government first", and you shouldn't be surprised about it.
Click to expand...


Actually you did, you said "the US is not a real democracy".


You seem to have trouble differentiating between America and Americans because in the very next paragraph you say "you are trying to give other countries lessons". No, I'm not. I'm saying that armed invasions are generally a Bad Thing. You seem to think I can't say anything because my country invaded another a few years ago. But I didn't support that. In fact, I don't support intervention in Syria and am on record here as opposing the Libya action.

So your charges of hypocrisy are utterly unfounded. All that is left of your point is the idea that no Americans can have a critical opinion of the foreign policy of another country, an idea whose ridiculousness is self evident, Presumably a certain length of time will pass since the Iraq invasion and then Americans will be allowed to express opinions again, when is that time?
 
Danny1982 said:
So you think too that the Russian tanks are flooding Crimea/Ukraine?
Click to expand...

No, I have never said that I did. I have said that their troops have left their bases in APCs, tanks, and other vehicles as a show of force in Crimea, which is documented by video and photos.
 
Sir Matt said:
No, I have never said that I did. I have said that their troops have left their bases in APCs, tanks, and other vehicles as a show of force in Crimea, which is documented by video and photos.
Click to expand...
Can I see the videos of Russian tanks deployed in Crimea?
 
@JustAFan, I'm not exaggerating. The new Ukrainian PM claimed that, but it was omitted from his speech in the Western media, and they replaced the word "tanks" with the word "troops".
 
Eboue said:
Actually you did, you said "the US is not a real democracy".


You seem to have trouble differentiating between America and Americans because in the very next paragraph you say "you are trying to give other countries lessons". No, I'm not. I'm saying that armed invasions are generally a Bad Thing. You seem to think I can't say anything because my country invaded another a few years ago. But I didn't support that. In fact, I don't support intervention in Syria and am on record here as opposing the Libya action.

So your charges of hypocrisy are utterly unfounded. All that is left of your point is the idea that no Americans can have a critical opinion of the foreign policy of another country, an idea whose ridiculousness is self evident, Presumably a certain length of time will pass since the Iraq invasion and then Americans will be allowed to express opinions again, when is that time?
Click to expand...
Do you support that any action taken against Russia should be taken against the US too (that is even assuming that what both did was equally bad, which is not true)?
 
Eboue said:
What is that supposed to mean? I suppose it is too much to assume that you have suddenly developed a nuanced view.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for a different, more direct and clear answer to my previous question, but either way, let's end that discussion there.
 
Danny1982 said:
I was hoping for a different, more direct and clear answer to my previous question, but either way, let's end that discussion there.
Click to expand...

Well you should have asked a more direct question. I don't believe in American exceptionalism but I also don't believe in making judgments on hypothetical scenarios to make points in a vacuum.
 
Eboue said:
Well you should have asked a more direct question. I don't believe in American exceptionalism but I also don't believe in making judgments on hypothetical scenarios to make points in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Hypothetical? What's hypothetical about the Iraq invasion (to name one)?

I think the only hypothetical thing being discussed right now is the "Russian invasion".
 
New Delhi, March 6: India has said Russia holds “legitimate interests” in Ukraine, becoming the first major nation appearing to publicly lean towards Moscow at a time it is largely isolated internationally over its military intervention in the Crimean Peninsula.

India’s first official response came on a day Crimean MPs voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, prompting the US to activate some sanctions. ( )

National security adviser Shivshankar Menon has said India wants the confrontation between the West and Moscow over Ukraine resolved peacefully. But he added that it also hoped that the interests of Russia and other stakeholders were taken into account.

“We hope that whatever internal issues there are within Ukraine are settled peacefully, and the broader issues of reconciling various interests involved, and there are legitimate Russian and other interests involved…. We hope those are discussed, negotiated and that there is a satisfactory resolution to them,” Menon said today.

Menon’s reference to Russia’s “legitimate interests” sparked a sharp diplomatic response from Kiev.

“We are not sure how Russia can be seen having legitimate interests in the territory of another country,” Roman Pyrih, the media secretary at the Ukrainian embassy in New Delhi, said. “In our view, and in the view of much of the international community, this is a direct act of aggression and we cannot accept any justification for it.”

The US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Italy and Japan — the seven G8 nations other than Russia — have criticised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to send troops into Ukraine’s southeastern Crimean Peninsula.

“There are principles of international law, and Russia violated these in entering the territory of another nation,” Pyrih said. “If there are any legitimate interests, those can be discussed diplomatically, not by sending in troops.”

The larger G20 grouping of the world’s 20 largest economies is not as united in its criticism of Russia, and includes several key allies of Moscow. But even South Africa and China, which have close economic ties with Russia, have so far only issued relatively anodyne public statements seeking a peaceful solution to the Ukraine crisis.

“China believes that Russia can coordinate with other parties to push for the political settlement of the issue so as to safeguard regional and world peace and stability,” the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement this week after Putin phoned Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Russia is India’s largest defence supplier — and an ally that stood by New Delhi in times when much of the rest of the world treated it as a pariah, like when India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998.

But Menon’s statement and New Delhi’s reluctance to criticise Putin stem also from a deeper concern.

India, officials said, is convinced that the West’s tacit support for a series of attempted coups against democratically elected governments — in Egypt, Thailand and now Ukraine — has only weakened democratic roots in these countries.

“We are watching what is happening in Ukraine with some concern,” Menon said.

The foreign ministry, later in the day, issued a statement adding that the presence of “more than 5,000 Indian nationals, including about 4,000 students, in different parts of Ukraine” had left India “concerned” at the “escalation of tensions”.

On Friday, when Russian troops were entering Crimea, the Ukrainian ambassador to India, Oleksandr Shevchenko, met external ministry affairs officials at South Block and sought New Delhi’s support. Shevchnko, Ukrainian officials said, left without any commitments.

Shevchenko has also asked for a meeting with Menon. But Menon has not yet given Shevchenko time, Pyrih said.
Click to expand...

Interesting but not entirely unexpected development. India and Russia(or USSR) have always had very good relations. If I'm not wrong then Russia and France were the only major countries who supported or didn't imposed any sanctions on India after the nuclear tests in 1998 and 1974. Plus Russia is also our highest defence supplier.
 
KM said:
Interesting but not entirely unexpected development. India and Russia(or USSR) have always had very good relations. If I'm not wrong then Russia and France were the only major countries who supported or didn't imposed any sanctions on India after the nuclear tests in 1998 and 1974. Plus Russia is also our highest defence supplier.
Click to expand...
Russia already expressed readiness to face US and EU's economic sanctions and they said they may even be ready to ditch the dollar as a currency because it said it had "very good relations with our friends in the East and the South". I assume they meant China, India and Iran (in addition to some of the former Soviet states?).
 
KM said:
Interesting but not entirely unexpected development. India and Russia(or USSR) have always had very good relations. If I'm not wrong then Russia and France were the only major countries who supported or didn't imposed any sanctions on India after the nuclear tests in 1998 and 1974. Plus Russia is also our highest defence supplier.
Click to expand...

I suppose India supports a Pakistani intervention in Kashmir, then.
 
Nedved said:
I suppose India supports a Pakistani intervention in Kashmir, then.
Click to expand...

Countries in being hypocrites when it comes to their foreign policy. Shocking!!

By that logic then US should stop supplying weapons and other stuff to Pakistan aswell since they're so vehemently opposing this by Russia.
 
Danny1982 said:
Russia already expressed readiness to face US and EU's economic sanctions and they said they may even be ready to ditch the dollar as a currency because it said it had "very good relations with our friends in the East and the South". I assume they meant China, India and Iran (in addition to some of the former Soviet states?).
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.