|
|
orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted March 22, 2015 09:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Putin's minions.
Watch your tongue, kid.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2015 09:50 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:52, 22 Mar 2015.
|
I think master suppression techniques should be forbidden in the CoC. They're starting to get really common...
Quote:
I'm not talking about that but about the infantile "they started first" reasoning of yours.
Did you even read the part of the article I linked? It literally states that the government started attacking protesters first. That's not infantile. That's a fact. What's infantile is to randomly call other people infantile instead of actually trying to use arguments and reasoning for once. It's also a master suppression technique which I think we should try to avoid in order to have a constructive discussion.
|
|
Sligneris
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2015 10:01 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
Xerox said:
Putin's minions.
Watch your tongue, kid.
Orzie, that's so much... input. Make sure not to crush him under the weight of your arguments.
|
|
orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2015 10:08 PM |
|
Edited by orzie at 22:09, 22 Mar 2015.
|
You should be visiting this forum too less to understand the Xerox' position over anything I could possibly say. I don't feel sense in trying to debate with a guy who openly admitted that he is biased towards Russia and will accept any means to bash it in any situation regardless of who is wrong and who is right. I have more important things to do in my life.
It's very funny to me how you all write about the conflict like you were the participants of it all, while I live in a neighbouring country and my hometown has greeted over 3000 war refugees from Donetsk, giving them a place to live and work, while you sit on your asses so far away from Russia and Ukraine, never knowing until 2014 that the latter country existed. I'm too tired of repeating the same words. Read the thread.
And just to make clear, I am not a supporter of Putin's politics on the international arena, and I never voted for him. I never voted at all to be precise.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2015 11:47 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:48, 22 Mar 2015.
|
|
I openly admtted I'm biased towards Russia? I have nothing against Russian people and in an ideal world, they wouldn't have Putin as their leader, but a leader who does not perceive Nato as an enormous, evil Western threat but instead seeks peace and integration with the rest of the world. Such a country could one day become a member of the EU and Nato. But some people in Russia seem to be completely obsessed over the whole "New Russian Empire" narrative. Russian leaders need to to climb off that high horse and realize that this game of empire building they're playing is a house of cards that's only going to crash down upon their very own people - which to great suffering already has happened to the Russian people multiple times in history.
|
|
orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 07:19 AM |
|
Edited by orzie at 07:42, 23 Mar 2015.
|
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=40373&PID=1226316#focus
You are so brave to speak about Russian history you obviously don't know, that it amuses me even more. Keep on.
Special fun is the statement that NATO strives for peace. If you studied history a bit, you would know that intentionally NATO was created as a counterpart to the Soviet block. The USSR is gone, but, surprisingly, NATO is stronger than ever. And closer to Russia than ever. It's all about the influence on political decisions of countries, and also the control in benefit to one side. You are speaking propaganda terms like "empire" while this word isn't even popular in our country. Empires are built on conquests. Russia didn't conquer anything.
I know it's useless to try to make you understand a tiny thing about real situation in the world, so this picture is here for other members of the forum reading this thread and our conversation.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 09:10 AM |
|
|
Objection!
The Russian map shows us as being part of their sphere, which we certainly are not!
Horrible insult! 
____________
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 12:16 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I openly admtted I'm biased towards Russia? I have nothing against Russian people and in an ideal world, they wouldn't have Putin as their leader, but a leader who does not perceive Nato as an enormous, evil Western threat but instead seeks peace and integration with the rest of the world. Such a country could one day become a member of the EU and Nato. But some people in Russia seem to be completely obsessed over the whole "New Russian Empire" narrative. Russian leaders need to to climb off that high horse and realize that this game of empire building they're playing is a house of cards that's only going to crash down upon their very own people - which to great suffering already has happened to the Russian people multiple times in history.
Your insertions shows that you are biased towards Russia. If you take a pause for the cause for just a few minutes and read your previous posts, you will notice you vote for more sanctions against Russia. But in the very end it is not Putin who will be slashed by the sanctions, but the entire russian people - people YOU just claimed to have nothing against.
As for Putin, he has his flaws, all leaders do. I am not going to start a debate whether he is good or bad, but have you asked yourself what might happen if Putin gets toppled and in his place comes someone who is even worse?
"Such a country could one day become a member of the EU and Nato." I just felt I must repeat this, for it is hilarious. EU has proven to be a gigantic fail project. People have no clue of the decisions made there and yet EU is intended to work like a USA. I mean come on, most people got no clue of who the president of the European Union is.
In regards to the empire part. I reckon there are a number of russian in russia who are still dreaming of a glorious empire, but I highly doubt most russians share this view and even less are likely to approve a huge war for it. The russian history is drenched in blood, murder, lies and betrayal. So it would take something quite peeving to make them agree to war. Perhaps those sanctions should be increased, no?
I would also like to point something out to you, Orzie. You can expect to be forced to exchange blows with a lot of people being biased to X and against Y things. The point of it all is to know when it is pointless to go on if one or both sides neglect everything.
Also if you are of legal age to vote, then do so. You should mark your will for democracy, unless you prefer something else that is.
"Objection!The Russian map shows us as being part of their sphere, which we certainly are not!Horrible insult!"
Which country do you speak of miss?
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 12:37 PM |
|
|
Finland, although that was a sarcastic jab and I should probably stop doing it before Cor throws me back to the abyss 
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 12:48 PM |
|
|
It doesn't even have Finland in it, that looks like the Kola peninsula which has the city of Murmansk.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 04:44 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 16:45, 23 Mar 2015.
|
orzie said:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=40373&PID=1226316#focus
You are so brave to speak about Russian history you obviously don't know, that it amuses me even more. Keep on.
Special fun is the statement that NATO strives for peace. If you studied history a bit, you would know that intentionally NATO was created as a counterpart to the Soviet block. The USSR is gone, but, surprisingly, NATO is stronger than ever. And closer to Russia than ever. It's all about the influence on political decisions of countries, and also the control in benefit to one side. You are speaking propaganda terms like "empire" while this word isn't even popular in our country. Empires are built on conquests. Russia didn't conquer anything.
I know it's useless to try to make you understand a tiny thing about real situation in the world, so this picture is here for other members of the forum reading this thread and our conversation.
[/img]
Because I said politics was about twisting the facts?
I'm not really posting on this forum to win elections but it's exactly what the Kreml is doing all the time.
Of course Nato was never going to be dismantled after the fall of the Soviet Union. Nato is an insurance for democratic countries against aggressive dictatorships. Considerign what's happenign in Russia today, I'm very glad that Nato has only grown more powerful. However, Nato is only a threat to Russia if Russia invades members of Nato and since I don't want Russia to go around and invade democratic countries, I think extending Nato is an excellent idea.
There's nothing wrong with Russia having a sphere of influence but they shouldn't try to maintain it by forcefully annexing regions and threathening other countries (like they threatened to nuke Denmark if they got a missile shield after their warplanes flew into Denmark's air space, which happens to Sweden several times a year).
Ebonheart said:
Your insertions shows that you are biased towards Russia. If you take a pause for the cause for just a few minutes and read your previous posts, you will notice you vote for more sanctions against Russia. But in the very end it is not Putin who will be slashed by the sanctions, but the entire russian people - people YOU just claimed to have nothing against.
The sanctions primarily target things owned by the government. I realize that the sanctions don't make the Russian people like the West more but since there's no alternative to Putin anyway (who's not even worse) you might aswell damage the Russian economy to limit their military investments.
Quote:
"Such a country could one day become a member of the EU and Nato." I just felt I must repeat this, for it is hilarious. EU has proven to be a gigantic fail project. People have no clue of the decisions made there and yet EU is intended to work like a USA. I mean come on, most people got no clue of who the president of the European Union is.
Yeah, nationalists tend to have a clue about anything.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 07:05 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Did you even read the part of the article I linked? It literally states that the government started attacking protesters first. That's not infantile. That's a fact. What's infantile is to randomly call other people infantile instead of actually trying to use arguments and reasoning for once. It's also a master suppression technique which I think we should try to avoid in order to have a constructive discussion.
Do you really have so many problems with reading comprehension? You're successfully becoming Elodin's successor. Keep it up if that's your aim.
I said I know about 30.11.2013. I also said that your argumentation of "they started first" is kindergarten tier, which becomes you actually. While at it, why don't you add "they started first" to the interim Ukrainian government which stopped the broadcasting of Russian TVs, was close to abolishing the official status of the Russian language (that's still hanging in the air, from procedural perspective only the presidential signature is missing), forced the Rada to vote with the right-wings "guarding" the sessions in front of the building with axes and bats, all of which before "the democratically elected city council" in Donetsk was removed? They already had the power, why did they immediately started using it alienate some 20% of Ukraine's population?
Perhaps such questions are forbidden for the minds of the Swedish libertarians though...
|
|
orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 07:17 PM |
|
Edited by orzie at 19:32, 23 Mar 2015.
|
Quote:
since I don't want Russia to go around and invade democratic countries
I can't imagine Russia "invading" any of European countries like Germany or Italy. If you can, well, I'm afraid can't help you. And no one can.
If you mean Crimea, it is inhabited by Russians and the said "annexation" would never happen if Russia was not supported by the population [1] [2] [3] [countless]. It is very unlikely to return to Ukraine because it is highly supported by Russian budget and dotations, while Ukraine is in a very sorry state. Under your blurry and stupid definition of "democracy" you cannot see that Crimean people had to learn Ukranian even if they didn't want to, read books with the twisted truth about the Soviet Union telling them that Bandera was a hero fighting for Ukrainian independence (from what? from the USSR which gave it infrastructure, made it a rich republic, and even gifted it the said Crimea?) instead of a traitor working with Nazis and terrorizing civilians while even Germany recognizes Bandera right as it should?
So that, the case of Crimea and Ukraine in general is very special. For some reason you can't see that Russia "invades" Belarus. Ah, I should have asked if you even know this country first.
As for the threats which you say about Denmark and others, it's pretty logical to show muscles and character when you are in the minority. 1990's Russia satisfied the West with Eltsin the president who never showed character and always conceded in front of the West. He ruined the country, and 90's are one of the hardest times in Russia, counting the Chechen wars, the 1998 "default" as we call it (namely, the denomination of national currency to 30 times).
We lived in snow for too long.
Quote:
Perhaps such questions are forbidden for the minds of the Swedish libertarians though...
He's not a specifically Swedish, but a typical libertarian. He uses the same cliches which are programmed in every libertarian's mind. We also have people with such strange point of view, yet these people are at least Russian and know Russian life instead of some swedish guys who are biased towards the country for various reasons (some may not be even political, hehe).
Basically, our libertarians spread the counterpropaganda about Putin being the second Hitler and master mass media fakes no less than official TV channels. So it's like seeing 2 opposites both being the same crap.
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 08:51 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Of course Nato was never going to be dismantled after the fall of the Soviet Union. Nato is an insurance for democratic countries against aggressive dictatorships. Considerign what's happenign in Russia today, I'm very glad that Nato has only grown more powerful. However, Nato is only a threat to Russia if Russia invades members of Nato and since I don't want Russia to go around and invade democratic countries, I think extending Nato is an excellent idea.
Unbiased indeed. Do you honestly think it would work like you describe it? That one day Russia wakes up in a bad mood and says "hey, snow all sense and peoples lifes (including our own) on the line, let's wage war with Sweden!". Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not exactly how it works and do you really think you can pull off a grand scale war in our modern time with some sort of ease? Firstly the people must be with you and thanks to the internet, most people have a higher level of understanding and independence than ever before. It will take something that angers and affects everyone to have reasons to start a major war or huge invasion.
I get the feeling you have read the swedish newspapers way too much.
xerox said:
There's nothing wrong with Russia having a sphere of influence but they shouldn't try to maintain it by forcefully annexing regions and threathening other countries (like they threatened to nuke Denmark if they got a missile shield after their warplanes flew into Denmark's air space, which happens to Sweden several times a year).
I agree this is a problem. Problem is that this is also taken too lightly from our side (thinking of Sweden). But one has to be a bit realistic, if Russia were to send a nuclear missile on Denmark, do you honestly think Russia would get away with it? No, they would be zerged down by anyone not taken down by the bomb and many of its own citizens would run rampart in their country. Simply put, it would provide them next to nothing and might cost them everything.
xerox said:
The sanctions primarily target things owned by the government. I realize that the sanctions don't make the Russian people like the West more but since there's no alternative to Putin anyway (who's not even worse) you might aswell damage the Russian economy to limit their military investments.
The sanctions might target things owned by the government. But directly or indirectly, the citizens are the ones who will suffer. For the government is not a person you can aim the sanctions at, it is just a group of people and nothing else.
As for Putin, you can be darn sure there are worse leaders ready to step up in Russia. Be happy you have Putin and not someone who is totally insane. Now if you think that by crashing their economy will solve this or force a different play, you might want to take a look on EU. We are not exactly out in a good ray of light ourselves.
xerox said:
Yeah, nationalists tend to have a clue about anything.
That was a hit below the belt, and I certainly hope you do not name me to be a nationalist. However you reek of socialistic influence, so why should I expect anything less?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 23, 2015 11:51 PM |
|
|
If it's not possible to discuss this topic in a respectful manner, I will close the thread.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Sligneris
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2015 12:41 AM |
|
|
How many victims of this war are there already, by the way? Are there any exact numbers?
Wouldn't it be best to intervene and disarm both sides?
|
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2015 05:33 AM |
|
|
Wikipedia is a bad source of information regarding politics. It's extremely biased and keeps omitting information ( often to the Western advantage ). The "who started first" is a good question to ask regarding important matters relating to the life and death of people. You can't just walk in a dispute between two parties regarding the death of people and try to spread the blame equally like an old grandma seeking a quick end to a dispute between two kids. In court, it can mean the difference between being acquitted or spending the rest of your life in prison.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 24, 2015 06:14 AM |
|
|
|
The "who started first" is an extremely slippery thing in conflicts and is usually something chosen arbitrarily or based on bias. Courts can't help there, courts become useless on the international arena when multiple interests clash. For Ukraine you can decide to "start" as far back as the so-called "Orange revolution", or Kuchma's presidency, the dissolution of the USSR or even the creation of Ukraine after WW I. Which is the best starting point? Why would you pick any of them, specifically? What makes the other less relevant, if they are related to the same conflict? In history, the worst conclusions are made when you decide that everything before a certain point is not important and you start building some artificial structure from that point on, just because it's more "recent" or whatever.
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted March 24, 2015 08:06 AM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
The "who started first" is an extremely slippery thing in conflicts and is usually something chosen arbitrarily or based on bias.
I once heard a saying that "It's not WHO that started the war that is always important, but rather WHO keeps it going".
But I agree with you Zenofex, in terms of Ukraine, I find it hard to say who started it. The whole situation is shrouded in blurriness.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 24, 2015 12:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:05, 24 Mar 2015.
|
Zenofex said:
The "who started first" is an extremely slippery thing in conflicts and is usually something chosen arbitrarily or based on bias. Courts can't help there, courts become useless on the international arena when multiple interests clash. For Ukraine you can decide to "start" as far back as the so-called "Orange revolution", or Kuchma's presidency, the dissolution of the USSR or even the creation of Ukraine after WW I. Which is the best starting point? Why would you pick any of them, specifically? What makes the other less relevant, if they are related to the same conflict? In history, the worst conclusions are made when you decide that everything before a certain point is not important and you start building some artificial structure from that point on, just because it's more "recent" or whatever.
While this is true to some extent, I think it depends on the case. In situations where things slowly escalate, it's indeed hard and mostly subjective to interpret which drop causes the water to outpour, yet, I'd say it's quite safe and reasonable to say Germany started WW2, for example. Although you can trace back the conflict and motive back to WW1, and then to 19th century colonialism, and then... if you stretch things too far you can link back almost everything to medieval or even ancient ages.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
