Jump to content
Cecil

My sincere condolences...

Recommended Posts

I would like to lighten the conversation up a bit ...

 

I feel I can't post it here but if you youTube Robin Williams the last 10 years of U.S. politics...or Robin Williams destroys Bush....

 

Have a bit of a laugh...

 

WARNING: You'll find Robin in full flight,expletives and all so if you don't like that...Don't go there...

 

No one's safe...

 

Enjoy...

 

Cheers

Edited by bigdaddy (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There, Strider, that didn't hurt too much did it?   All you did was reveal that you are like half of the US electorate - that you support one major political party or the other......and that, as such, you can be taken for granted.

 

As Robin Williams has taught us......the only way to handle the mongrels sometimes is to laugh at them.

 

 

Gary

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There, Strider, that didn't hurt too much did it?   All you did was reveal that you are like half of the US electorate - that you support one major political party or the other......and that, as such, you can be taken for granted.

 

As Robin Williams has taught us......the only way to handle the mongrels sometimes is to laugh at them.

 

 

 

Taken for granted, discounted, and ignored by the very politicians that we elect to do our will but instead do the will of the entrenched establishment and special interests.  But that is slowly changing, thanks in large part to the current leadership's incompetence.  Many conservative "lifers" are gone and more are coming up on the chopping block thanks to an awakening by true conservatives in the US.  We have made it clear and sent a resounding message that false conservatives are at risk. We are determined to get our nation back and make Washington do what we want, not be servants to their false ideologies and lies.  The struggle is going to be long, but eventually, as things continue to deteriorate, I am hopeful the impressionable youth will wake up and take action.

The alternative is the end of America as we know it.

Edited by Strider (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?  It was the democrats in the 60s that fought against the civil rights act and was the republicans that pushed to get it passed.  The idea that conservatives, the GOP, the Party of Licoln, are trying to keep miinorities down is absurd and flys in the face of historical fact. The "war on women" is a left wing fantesy to garner support by using fear. I have 5 girls, do you really think I am tryiong to hurt them? 

 

  Hmm,  to say that republicans were for the civil rights bill and democrats were against it , is twisting the reality a little much. Especially since it was the Democratic president and vice president that fought so hard for this bill.  It is way more honest to say that southern democrats and republicans were against it and the Northern politicians on both parties were , in the major group, for it.   This twist is worthy of Rupert Murdocks false , err I mean Fox news.   I wish my fellow countrymen would spend more time learning the actual history and facts and less time watching the propaganda channel for entrenched money folks meant to influence the poor masses into voting against their own interest.

 

My biggest concern is that if the far right does get in control, they will implement policies so severe that they will tank the US and ultimately the global economy.  If that happens, we best be able to grow our own food sustainably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Hmm,  to say that republicans were for the civil rights bill and democrats were against it , is twisting the reality a little much. Especially since it was the Democratic president and vice president that fought so hard for this bill.  It is way more honest to say that southern democrats and republicans were against it and the Northern politicians on both parties were , in the major group, for it.   This twist is worthy of Rupert Murdocks false , err I mean Fox news.   I wish my fellow countrymen would spend more time learning the actual history and facts and less time watching the propaganda channel for entrenched money folks meant to influence the poor masses into voting against their own interest.

 

My biggest concern is that if the far right does get in control, they will implement policies so severe that they will tank the US and ultimately the global economy.  If that happens, we best be able to grow our own food sustainably.

How is my first sentence twisting reality?  More Republicans voted for the passage in both houses than democrats. Do you suggest that the geography has any bearing on anything? Of course Southern Democrats were against it. That was a legacy of the Civil War where most people in the South became Democrats exactly because of their loss to Lincoln who was a Republican.  And if you look closely at your history, you will see it was the republican party leadership, working with LBJ that got the bill passed. Do you know the longest Senate filibuster in history was by democrats trying to stop the Civil Rights Act?  

I have noticed that when confronted with truth liberals will always attack. You attack Fox News and Murdock but neither has any bearing on the actual history of the Civil Rights Act.  And for your continuing edification, the democrats voting record on the voters rights bill virtually mirrored the Civil Rights Act. 

I am surprised you did not pull the old tried and true ploy of saying that those Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Act in 64 switched to the Republican Party. I always chuckle when I hear that one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Math is a little off.

 

Democrats voting for it was 152

Republicans voting for it was 138   

House

 

Senate:

Democrats voting for it was    44

Republicans voting for it was   27

 

Total democrats/republicans voting for it:    196  vs 165 .

 

Hardly more republicans voting for it than democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Math is a little off.

 

Democrats voting for it was 152

Republicans voting for it was 138   

House

 

Senate:

Democrats voting for it was    44

Republicans voting for it was   27

 

Total democrats/republicans voting for it:    196  vs 165 .

 

Hardly more republicans voting for it than democrats.

 Ah, my fault. I should have elaborated.   In 1964 the Democrats held majorities in both houses, yet as a percentage more Republicans voted to pass the bill than Democrats. And this tells it better than I can... Hmm, looks like Byrds filibuster was the second longest, could of swore it was the longest..Oh well.

 

 

 

The enormous desire to memorialize the senseless murder of John F. Kennedy, plus Johnson’s determination to demonstrate his power and purge his own racist past by getting a substantive civil rights bill through the Senate, proved a formidable combination. The long filibuster of 1964 was only delaying the inevitable. That all the participants knew this only goes to show how deep their racism was. It’s one thing to engage in a filibuster if there is even a glimmer of hope that something might be salvaged as a result. But serious commitment is required to take such action when one knows that ultimate failure is the only conceivable outcome. This fact should be kept in mind when thinking about people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, whose individual filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill is the second longest in history, taking up eighty-six pages of fine print in the Congressional Record. Only a true believer would ever undertake such a futile effort.
            Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill—the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea†votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay†votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.â€
 
            A similar story is told in the Senate. On the critical vote to end the filibuster by Southern Democrats, 71 senators voted to invoke cloture. With 67 votes needed, 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans joined together to bring the bill to a final vote. Of those voting “nay,†80 percent were Democrats, including Robert C. Byrd and former Vice President Al Gore’s father, who was then a senator from Tennessee. Again, it is clear that the civil rights bill would have failed without Republican votes. Close observers of the Senate deliberations recognized that the Republican leader, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, had done yeoman work in responding to the objections of individual Republicans and holding almost all of them together in support of the bill. “More than any other single individual,†the New York Times acknowledged, “he was responsible for getting the civil rights bill through the Senate.â€
 
Edited by Strider (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Bartlett appears to have difficulty with math... especially weighted averages.

 

98% of northern democrats voted for it.

84% of northern republicans voted for it

 

with the exception on 1 Texan democrat   100% of southern democrats and republicans voted against it.  For others not familiar with the racist demographics that existed at the time, it only makes sense that southern politicians would vote against a bill that would allow women to not have to be barefoot and pregnant and any person not white considered a secondary citizen.

 

These oversimplifications that more republicans voted for it than democrats border on the absurd and obscene.  The biggest danger we face as a people of this planet, are these idealogies that people buy into, so they don't have to think, someone else will do it for them.  Our species may very well be in danger of falling on it's own sword if the trend continues.

Edited by Ravnis (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Bartlett appears to have difficulty with math... especially weighted averages.

 

98% of northern democrats voted for it.

84% of northern republicans voted for it

 

with the exception on 1 Texan democrat   100% of southern democrats and republicans voted against it.  For others not familiar with the racist demographics that existed at the time, it only makes sense that southern politicians would vote against a bill that would allow women to not have to be barefoot and pregnant and any person not white considered a secondary citizen.

 

These oversimplifications that more republicans voted for it than democrats border on the absurd and obscene.  The biggest danger we face as a people of this planet, are these idealogies that people buy into, so they don't have to think, someone else will do it for them.  Our species may very well be in danger of falling on it's own sword if the trend continues.

Who cares where the democrats are from? Point is they were A. Democrats, and B. Racists trying to stall the advancement of civil rights. The fact that they were from the South does not change the fact they were democrats.

That is what made the passage of this bill so historic. But it was the republicans that made passage possible.

But let's not lose sight of why we are discussing this. It is only democrats that make the false accusations of labeling a whole party as being racists and working against "women's rights".

It is still happening today. And it is false, old, and tired. People like Cecil in post #23 parroting the false narrative that he gets from the left media and politicians. And when confronted with inconvenient historical fact you on the left start making excuses rather than stating the obvious, which is that there are racists across all parties but only the left consistently points the finger for political gain.

And because the right supports the rights of people to practice religion as they chose, I.e., not to provide birth control to others, they are labeled anti women. Imagine asking women to have to pay for their own birth control to support her sexual proclivities? A blatant violation of their rights to be sure! How will Sally rotten croch have sex? Oh the humanity! To think I am responsible for poor Sally getting pregnant and bringing another burden on society into the World! But Sally don't care, because Sally knows the government will take care of her and her mistakes....as long as she continues to vote democrat. In fact, the more mistakes Sslly makes, the more government will provide. What a cozy little relationship. But government dies not earn money to support Sally's mistakes, they take it from us.

There is no stigma with out of wedlock pregnancy and birth today. It has become so common place we have been conditioned to just accept it. And so it has replaced older accepted norms of behavior and been mainstreamed and shoved down societies throats as "acceptable". Fatherless families has exploded, especially in minority communities.

We have spent trillions on "the war on poverty" and have not made a dent in that problem! Why? Because the liberal policies only perpetuates, and in fact, exacerbates poverty. People are less self dependent and more dependent on government. Who profits from this ideology? The politicians who push it of course.

But hey, let's not blame the person making bad choices, let's blame those that don't want their money going to support those bad decisions.

Throwing money at problems does not solve those problems, it only makes them worse by creating unintended consequences. Did anyone with half a brain really think that politicians and left wing academia would make health care more affordable? Ironic isn't it? Ever notice that when the politicians want to get some terrible legislation passed they name it the opposite of what it becomes. The ACA isn't so affordable. The ACA was never about health care affordability, it was about wealth redistribution and control.

But the brain dead people just do what the left political machine and their MSM support groups tell them. You are right about one thing, people don't think. If they did, Obama and many others he appointed would be out on the ear right now for the lies and the abuse of Presidential authority.

OK, that takes me through one cup of coffee. Time to go feed the fish and unwind doing Aquaponics...I mean aquaculture stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares where the democrats are from? Point is they were A. Democrats, and B. Racists trying to stall the advancement of civil rights. The fact that they were from the South does not change the fact they were democrats.

 

I think the point is, that the difference, in political viev, and thereby how you cast your vote, does not go along "the parroted" party-lines, Rep vs Dem are like this or that, the divition is far more complex.

The danger to a (any) society is when the radicals on either side get to rule.

 

This thread is/was a condolance towards the inocent caught up in a ongoing war/civilwar in Ukraine, led on by extremists/radicals on both sides,(as usual), and not about American history. :phew: I'm sorry to see how polarised, the debate has become over there, and how dominante role religon/moral seem to play, in domestic US-politics, these days. :(

 

Ukrain is in a mess, do to it's complex history/demografi, and it's not getting better by the Russian direct/indirect involvement/ocupation/anectation.

I doubt it would get any better with the US getting military involved. 

It might help ? with EU & other European institutions involvement. but any millitary actions will only escalate situation. IMO

 

Civilian aircrafts have been targeted by differente nations before, also so called "friendly fire" when you by mistake target your own troops.  The "unfortunate" happenings is usualy admited by the "guilty" party, not so in this case ?

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Australia, we have a billionaire who decided to start his own political party.  By any reasonable assessment, Clive Palmer is barking mad.  

 

I've voted for him and his colleagues in state and federal elections.

 

Do I believe that he will act in the broader interests of Australians?  Not a chance....billionaires don't get to be that way by being caring, sharing human beings.

 

Do I think that his party will be here for the long haul?  No.....I'd be surprised if they're still running candidates in five years' time.

 

Is he a good representative of the Australian people?   Not if you listen to the Chinese Government who, several days ago, he described as "mongrels who shoot their own people" - triggering a diplomatic anxiety attack for the Australian government.  

 

Do I think that he's a serious political thinker?   No.....he's largely motivated by a desire to stick his forefinger in the eyes of this foes at both ends of the political spectrum. 

 

Why would anyone vote for him?

 

For me, it's simple.  I'm sick and tired of the mongrels from the Labor and Liberal (in Australia this means conservative) parties taking the electorate for granted.   They think that they can do whatever they want and that there's nothing that anyone can do to stop them.  While they have the appearance of being competitors, they are smug in their belief that one or the other of them is going to get to control the country.  Regardless of how badly they stuff it up, they are safe in the knowledge that sitting it out on the benches for a term or two is the only penalty they'll have to suffer.

 

Then along comes Clive....and they find themselves looking at a different paradigm.   They now have to include him because his Palmer United Party and a small handful of independents hold the balance of power in the Australian parliament.  The ruling Liberal government can only get legislative support for their program through dealing with Clive......and, some days, he's barking mad. 

 

Essentially, Clive is visiting a little Karmic retribution on Australia's mainstream political parties.....and I (and the rest of the Australian electorate) get a  ringside seat to watch him bend them over.

 

Gary

Edited by GaryD (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggression is aggression. Don't mater if it is a dictator like putin or Islamic extremists. They only understand one thing, pain. You cannot reason with their like from a position of weakness. And if you show weakness they will continue to do bad things or eventually attack you.  

However, why hasn't more been done to sanction Russia by Europe? Is it too/more important to keep the gas flowing?  Why hasn't Obama done all he can with sanctions? And does anyone really think it will make a difference if we do?  Where is the mighty UN? They are more concerned with Global Warming and Carbon Credits that stopping evil.

Edited by Strider (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggression is aggression. Don't mater if it is a dictator like putin or Islamic extremists.

 

Or fundamentalist Christians... or Jews... or colonial powers....

 

And to top it off... I found this alarming article today...

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/buddhist-extremist-cell-vows-to-unleash-tranquilit,34623/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi S

 

Aggression is aggression.

 

Only in the spelling. I guess ?

You see aggression, where I don't, and oppositte around.

Some we both see, but we might have differente opinions on, whom is the aggressor, and by that we can't agree as to how we deal with it, so we don't deal with it.

Other times we act alone, on behalf of, one of the oponents, with each others silent/loud protest or blessing "mutual understanding"

Every so often we act togheter, not allways for the same means/reasons/goals, but we are forced to act, by the share scale, as we can no longer act/pretend not to see, so it is unethical to not act.

But most often our mutual action is triggerd by our own selfish interests.  We are either profiting on it (you,me or both) or, we are intimitaded (threathend) directly/indirectly or our economic interests is at stake.

On a rear odd ocation we act for the common good of mankind without self interests first. And even on these few ocations, we strugle to agree on the hows/means and timelines, so allways we are arriving late at the scene (sometimes to late) by mutual standards.

 

 

 

 

Don't mater if it is a dictator like putin or Islamic extremists.

Any bully I would say.

 IMO, Putin is not a dictator (that is your opinion), he is the democratic elected President of The Russian Federation (РоÑÑиÌйÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð¤ÐµÐ´ÐµÑ€Ð°ÌциÑ, Rossiyskaya Federatsiya), commonly known as Russia (Rossiya), is a transcontinental country extending over much of northern Eurasia (Asia and Europe).The largest country in the world by land area, Russia has the world's ninth-largest population. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Russian_Federation

Much like Obama, is the democratic elected President of The USA

Not that it matters much to the bullied, wheter the bully is a dictator/president/primeminister/ambasador/clasmate/teatcher/boss

neither the religion belife (islamic/christian/jew) of a extremist would matter to the bullied. The nature/behavior of the bully is more or less the same, no matter wraping.   Pic bellow from here : http://www.bullyingprevention.org/index.cfm/ID/9

Bullying%20circle%20%2024.jpg

 

There is aprox 1,2 million  "ethnic russian" refugees, from Ukraine inside Russia by now, so it's Putins duty to react, and unfortunatly his reactions include direct/indirect military action/ocupation/annexation, as wished for only by the extremists.

I doubt, that any American president (Democrat/Republican/Indep) would react any different with a stream of 1,2 million Americans fleeing their homes/jobs/etc. in to the USA and numerous more (Russian & other ethnic groups) being bullied where they come from.

 

I don't suport or condone Putin's actions in any way, but I'm not at all surprised, except for the sillent western axceptans, of the russian annexation of Crimea  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

IMO only the USA, UK & Polland adressed it propperly the rest of the world pretended not to see, I think the emidiate call for sanctions should have been disscused/implemented, loud & clear.

 

They only understand one thing, pain. You cannot reason with their like from a position of weakness. And if you show weakness they will continue to do bad things or eventually attack you.  .

 

I pollitly disagree on your statements.

 

However, why hasn't more been done to sanction Russia by Europe? Is it too/more important to keep the gas flowing?  Why hasn't Obama done all he can with sanctions? And does anyone really think it will make a difference if we do?

Europe is not a single unified body so there is different opinions on the matter wich slows things down, a lot have been done and more follows  http://www.bakermckenzie.com/sanctionsnews/

I think Obama has done all he can with sanctions thus far, and I belive there is more to come as well.

I truly belive it makes a difference & more important it hurts the rich suporters of the Russian regime so they loose domestic suport

The Russian people get tiered of war ocupation and bodybags just like The US people. (or any people)

 

 Where is the mighty UN? They are more concerned with Global Warming and Carbon Credits that stopping evil.

 

The UN is no more mighty than the member states make it.

Quote :

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 is a resolution adopted on March 27, 2014 by the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly in response to the 2014 Crimean crisis and entitled "Territorial integrity of Ukraine". The resolution, which was supported by 100 United Nations member states, affirmed the United Nations commitment to recognize Crimea within Ukraine’s international borders and underscored the invalidity of the 2014 Crimean referendum. Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe all voted against the resolution. There were also 58 abstentions, and a further 24 states did not vote through being absent when the vote took place.

The resolution was introduced by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine.[1] The adoption of the resolution was preceded by the unsuccessful attempts of the United Nations Security Council, that convened seven sessions to address the Crimean crisis, only to face Russian veto.[2]

 

From here :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

 

Unfortunately The UN's  securety Councils permanent members have a terrible histry of using their VETO most often in their self interest (and the USA is no different on that matter) see historical list here: http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_en.shtml

 

Man that was way to long, hope you don't percive it as a atack on you Strider, it's not ment to be, but I think your aproach, is to much black/white, and verry dogmatic.

Liberal in the political meaning here in Norway & western Europe describes a moderat right winger on the left/right axis. like in AU

and not a lefty/comunist like in the USA

So like "a bully is bully" or "aggression is aggression" only in the spelling The same would aply to a "liberal is a liberal" funy how the words have totaly opposite meaning

 

 They are more concerned with Global Warming and Carbon Credits that stopping evil.

 

You can't bomb GW & CC but evil you can point out in any doctrine but is "evil is evil" the same

I wonder ? Might be some neuanses there depending on the eyes of the beholder as well ?

 

anyways I grief on behalf of all affected by the vilonce in Ukraine 

 

back to the mushrooms cheers 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why this plane is shoot down is mistake.

Putins plane was supposed to fly this path over Ukraine when he was returning to Moscow,but he was delayed 1 hour.

believe it or not. it's up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes more sense.  One of the things that was being reported was that there early warning systems weren't able to track an airliner that suddenly flew up and required either advanced knowledge or high tech tracking equipment to shoot a jet at that altitude and speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Has anyone pondered the "wisdom" of airline flight route planners who put their aircraft across the air space of a country that is at war?   I wonder how the "we'll save $XX of fuel by overflying the Ukraine" argument is stacking up now.

 

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Caca

Nice to hear your voice again :)

 

The reason why this plane is shoot down is mistake.

Putins plane was supposed to fly this path over Ukraine when he was returning to Moscow,but he was delayed 1 hour.

believe it or not. it's up to you.

I agree that the shoot down was most probably a mistake, like most other civilian airliners shot down, has been.

 

It remains to be seen howm made the fatal miss ID. I struggle to see or belive that it was mistaken to be Putins flight.

The insurgens (iregular army with russian suport) kept the international investigators away from the wreckege, for to long, for that to be true IMO

Iff the plane was shot down by Ukraines regular forces, I firmly belive that the insurgents(and the Russians) would have secured the wreck & reveled the proof, for the world to see.

Time will tell what really hapend I hope, and hopefully those responsible will be held acountable for their actions.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Australia, we have a billionaire who decided to start his own political party.  By any reasonable assessment, Clive Palmer is barking mad.  

 

I've voted for him and his colleagues in state and federal elections.

 

Do I believe that he will act in the broader interests of Australians?  Not a chance....billionaires don't get to be that way by being caring, sharing human beings.

 

Do I think that his party will be here for the long haul?  No.....I'd be surprised if they're still running candidates in five years' time.

 

Is he a good representative of the Australian people?   Not if you listen to the Chinese Government who, several days ago, he described as "mongrels who shoot their own people" - triggering a diplomatic anxiety attack for the Australian government.  

 

Do I think that he's a serious political thinker?   No.....he's largely motivated by a desire to stick his forefinger in the eyes of this foes at both ends of the political spectrum. 

 

Why would anyone vote for him?

 

For me, it's simple.  I'm sick and tired of the mongrels from the Labor and Liberal (in Australia this means conservative) parties taking the electorate for granted.   They think that they can do whatever they want and that there's nothing that anyone can do to stop them.  While they have the appearance of being competitors, they are smug in their belief that one or the other of them is going to get to control the country.  Regardless of how badly they stuff it up, they are safe in the knowledge that sitting it out on the benches for a term or two is the only penalty they'll have to suffer.

 

Then along comes Clive....and they find themselves looking at a different paradigm.   They now have to include him because his Palmer United Party and a small handful of independents hold the balance of power in the Australian parliament.  The ruling Liberal government can only get legislative support for their program through dealing with Clive......and, some days, he's barking mad. 

 

Essentially, Clive is visiting a little Karmic retribution on Australia's mainstream political parties.....and I (and the rest of the Australian electorate) get a  ringside seat to watch him bend them over.

 

Gary

Two major parties, one always in control and both forgot the principles that they were conceived under.....sounds familiar. Our Palmer is the Tea Party, who sprung into existence because the grass roots Americans were tired of politicians doing any damn thing they wanted against the will of those that sent them there.

I like plain talk and abhor political speak. The world needs more plain talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is, that the difference, in political viev, and thereby how you cast your vote, does not go along "the parroted" party-lines, Rep vs Dem are like this or that, the divition is far more complex.

The danger to a (any) society is when the radicals on either side get to rule.

 

This thread is/was a condolance towards the inocent caught up in a ongoing war/civilwar in Ukraine, led on by extremists/radicals on both sides,(as usual), and not about American history. :phew: I'm sorry to see how polarised, the debate has become over there, and how dominante role religon/moral seem to play, in domestic US-politics, these days. :(

 

Ukrain is in a mess, do to it's complex history/demografi, and it's not getting better by the Russian direct/indirect involvement/ocupation/anectation.

I doubt it would get any better with the US getting military involved. 

It might help ? with EU & other European institutions involvement. but any millitary actions will only escalate situation. IMO

 

Civilian aircrafts have been targeted by differente nations before, also so called "friendly fire" when you by mistake target your own troops.  The "unfortunate" happenings is usualy admited by the "guilty" party, not so in this case ?

 

cheers

Indeed, the innocent always pay the highest price when dictators and other extremists are given free reign to plunder and invade.

The US, under Obama will never get involved militarily in Ukraine. Putin knows this and he also knows Europe will not go without US support/approval.

In short, there is a power vacuum and Putin will take full advantage of it to gain as much new territory as he can.

US satellites have shown Russian heavy trucks and armor moving into Ukraine. Kiss Ukraine goodbye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi S

Only in the spelling. I guess ?

You see aggression, where I don't, and oppositte around.

Some we both see, but we might have differente opinions on, whom is the aggressor, and by that we can't agree as to how we deal with it, so we don't deal with it.

Other times we act alone, on behalf of, one of the oponents, with each others silent/loud protest or blessing "mutual understanding"

Every so often we act togheter, not allways for the same means/reasons/goals, but we are forced to act, by the share scale, as we can no longer act/pretend not to see, so it is unethical to not act.

But most often our mutual action is triggerd by our own selfish interests. We are either profiting on it (you,me or both) or, we are intimitaded (threathend) directly/indirectly or our economic interests is at stake.

On a rear odd ocation we act for the common good of mankind without self interests first. And even on these few ocations, we strugle to agree on the hows/means and timelines, so allways we are arriving late at the scene (sometimes to late) by mutual standards.

Any bully I would say.

IMO, Putin is not a dictator (that is your opinion), he is the democratic elected President of The Russian Federation (РоÑÑиÌйÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð¤ÐµÐ´ÐµÑ€Ð°ÌциÑ, Rossiyskaya Federatsiya), commonly known as Russia (Rossiya), is a transcontinental country extending over much of northern Eurasia (Asia and Europe).The largest country in the world by land area, Russia has the world's ninth-largest population. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Russian_Federation

Much like Obama, is the democratic elected President of The USA

Not that it matters much to the bullied, wheter the bully is a dictator/president/primeminister/ambasador/clasmate/teatcher/boss

neither the religion belife (islamic/christian/jew) of a extremist would matter to the bullied. The nature/behavior of the bully is more or less the same, no matter wraping. Pic bellow from here : http://www.bullyingprevention.org/index.cfm/ID/9

Bullying%20circle%20%2024.jpg

There is aprox 1,2 million "ethnic russian" refugees, from Ukraine inside Russia by now, so it's Putins duty to react, and unfortunatly his reactions include direct/indirect military action/ocupation/annexation, as wished for only by the extremists.

I doubt, that any American president (Democrat/Republican/Indep) would react any different with a stream of 1,2 million Americans fleeing their homes/jobs/etc. in to the USA and numerous more (Russian & other ethnic groups) being bullied where they come from.

I don't suport or condone Putin's actions in any way, but I'm not at all surprised, except for the sillent western axceptans, of the russian annexation of Crimea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

IMO only the USA, UK & Polland adressed it propperly the rest of the world pretended not to see, I think the emidiate call for sanctions should have been disscused/implemented, loud & clear.

I pollitly disagree on your statements.

Europe is not a single unified body so there is different opinions on the matter wich slows things down, a lot have been done and more follows http://www.bakermckenzie.com/sanctionsnews/

I think Obama has done all he can with sanctions thus far, and I belive there is more to come as well.

I truly belive it makes a difference & more important it hurts the rich suporters of the Russian regime so they loose domestic suport

The Russian people get tiered of war ocupation and bodybags just like The US people. (or any people)

The UN is no more mighty than the member states make it.

Quote :

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 is a resolution adopted on March 27, 2014 by the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly in response to the 2014 Crimean crisis and entitled "Territorial integrity of Ukraine". The resolution, which was supported by 100 United Nations member states, affirmed the United Nations commitment to recognize Crimea within Ukraine’s international borders and underscored the invalidity of the 2014 Crimean referendum. Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe all voted against the resolution. There were also 58 abstentions, and a further 24 states did not vote through being absent when the vote took place.

The resolution was introduced by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine.[1] The adoption of the resolution was preceded by the unsuccessful attempts of the United Nations Security Council, that convened seven sessions to address the Crimean crisis, only to face Russian veto.[2]

From here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

Unfortunately The UN's securety Councils permanent members have a terrible histry of using their VETO most often in their self interest (and the USA is no different on that matter) see historical list here: http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_en.shtml

Man that was way to long, hope you don't percive it as a atack on you Strider, it's not ment to be, but I think your aproach, is to much black/white, and verry dogmatic.

Liberal in the political meaning here in Norway & western Europe describes a moderat right winger on the left/right axis. like in AU

and not a lefty/comunist like in the USA

So like "a bully is bully" or "aggression is aggression" only in the spelling The same would aply to a "liberal is a liberal" funy how the words have totaly opposite meaning

You can't bomb GW & CC but evil you can point out in any doctrine but is "evil is evil" the same

I wonder ? Might be some neuanses there depending on the eyes of the beholder as well ?

anyways I grief on behalf of all affected by the vilonce in Ukraine

back to the mushrooms cheers

Let me just say I disagree with virtually everything you posted. But in the interests of brevity, I will address your statement that Putin is a democratically elected leader. That was true the first time he was elected. But then he did what so many dictators do, he changed the rules so he could stay in power indefinitely. Just as Chavez did. These predators take advantage of the free election system to get in power, then they change the rules to stay in power. That Sir is the very definition of a dictator. He has no regard for individual rights, personal property rights, or the integrity of other sovereign borders.

Obama will be gone in two years. That is the very big difference between a true democracy based on the rule of law and Putin's Russia. The man does not have a conscience. His aggressive actions have caused innocent deaths and you can bet that he sleeps like a baby at night.

Edited by Strider (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of who it might have been intended to shoot down...

 

The launching of a missile wasn't a "mistake"... lol

Sorry if u misunderstood me.My english isn't very good.

I'm deeply sorry for loss of life of innocent people,I know that all too well.

 

Hi ande

Real truth about it we will never know (as always in wars). Personally I don't like Putin but also and Poroshenko. Iif people in Russia and Ukraine like them, who am I to judge.There they are their leaders for a reason. Sadly.

Both of them and the whole world know what will happen before war, that innocent people will die.

Also, I'm sure that would be peace in 2 days in Ukraine if the world and these two want it, but nobody want peace until they ALL benefit from war.

After war, Ukraine will be thrown in stone age and everybody is happy because war is over, and let as help NOW to poor people of Ukraine.

"Oh wait, there is war in another country".... here we go again....

 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true President Putin's presidential plane looks similar and has similar colours to that of MH 17?

 

Hi Gary, With all that is going on with QANTAS ATM, they still manage to make correct decisions from time to time...They made a decision to stop flying over that part of the world months before this happened...

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...