Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[thief of fire]

You need to take responsibility for the failure to connect and stop shifting the blame. I have told you why the situations are different. All you do is keep pointing to the similarities and avoiding the differences.
What you are doing is essentially saying "oranges and apples are both round...oranges and apples both have seeds, therefore they are the same".
I'm saying oranges and apples may have similarities but that doesn't make them the same fruit.

And more quote mining...while once more evading or avoiding formulating any opinion as to whether or not the Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea violated the terms and conditions clearly cited in Article 6 of the Partition Treaty.

What could be your motivation to NOT formulate such opinion?

I have an opinion on that, so it's not that I don't have an opinion. I'm pointing out why Crimea was different. You keep ignoring that and repeating your argument about Article 6. Article 6 is not necessarily relevant if the context is very different ti Italy (which is what you tried to compare it to).
I look forward to your next answer where you ignore the differences and crap on about Article 6

 

[barbos]

Why don't you go first and find these WMD in Iraq.

Is it your position that no citizen in the world can complain about Russian aggression due to the US aggression?

No, just dutch. And since there is no russian aggression the rest of the citizens in the world, but most and foremost dutch.

 

[barbos]

I see nobody addressed CIA and Belgian Monarchy staging a coup in Kongo and murdering the first democratically elected Prime minister.

 

[Sabine Grant]

And more quote mining...while once more evading or avoiding formulating any opinion as to whether or not the Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea violated the terms and conditions clearly cited in Article 6 of the Partition Treaty.

What could be your motivation to NOT formulate such opinion?

I have an opinion on that, so it's not that I don't have an opinion. I'm pointing out why Crimea was different. You keep ignoring that and repeating your argument about Article 6. Article 6 is not necessarily relevant if the context is very different ti Italy (which is what you tried to compare it to).
I look forward to your next answer where you ignore the differences and crap on about Article 6

The comparison was addressing the reality that ANY nation stationing military personnel and material is bound by terms and conditions. To add that such conditions often also address Rules Of Engagement. Meaning what type of activities and interactions are allowed between the said military personnel and the local population.

Since you mention you have an opinion regarding the specific of whether Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea violated the Terms and conditions of Article 6 of the Treaty of partition, what is your opinion then?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Sure. In general what I look for is an argument that makes sense. Whether I agree with the arguer or not makes less difference than whether it is well put together. A decent argument can be used again, it can go around the world, and be used with people we've never met. It changes the world. Whether I agree or not, it's significant, and I can spread it, or try and find a problem with it. A rubbish argument, by contrast, is useless. It doesn't convince anyone, it usually undermines the point being made, and there's no earthly point in doing anything with it.

When this thread started, there were some serious points being made. Not very convincing ones, I thought, but at least people were trying to build a case. By this stage, however, it's becoming apparent that not only is there no coherent argument behind the points that were being made, but that the opinion you're pushing was never based on those points in the first place. I understand that you find US media appalling - so do I. I understand that you are worried about right-wing extremists in the new regime in Kiev, so am I. I understand that you think that Russia has a valid security concern, and I think there's a point to be made there.

But if you're stuck on trying to make out that an armed military takeover of a neighbouring region isn't an invasion, that a hasty referendum held by armed soldiers producing a suspiciously high 93% approval rate is somehow a demonstration of public opinion, and that the suppression of internal dissent somehow isn't political, then we're kinda done. Barbos has already abandoned argument entirely in favour of just chanting at people, and you're just trying to criticise America as if it made any kind of difference to the Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine whether the US has a high incarceration rate or corrupt politicians.

I'm asking you to have a good hard look at the arguments you're pushing. Not the position you hold, the arguments. And ask yourself if even you would find them convincing. Because at the moment it just looks like a mess.

No ..I was more interested in why you hold the position you held before this thread started. You had much the same views and sniping in the previous forum, so your views on this issue are from way before this thread. How did you arrive at your position...and what is your position on the Ukraine? It seemed to me,that when you began to post on this and related topics in the old forum, you began with an anti-Russian stance. You never made arguments about it, and it was that that surprised me then. It surprised me because normally in my experience here and on that forum you would have made arguments and not just sniped. And now seeing you doing it again, I just wondered how you came to your views. Nothing really to do with this thread.
Thanks
But know considering that Russia already had troops there. Considering that they had just uncovered evidence that the US and NATO had backed a coup in Kiev with large Neo Nazi elements I don't consider it an invasion.
And I consider it hypocrisy for so many here to be screeching about it when they never complain about real invasions. They aonly complain about this faux invasion.
It's amusing.

I am not sure how you can conclude that they "never complain about any real invasions". Have you somehow been an avid reader of thousands of posts illustrating the history of FRDB and now TFT to the point that you have memorized each single FRDB member's stances in the Political Discussion Forum? You see, I have probably read far many more posts and close to a daily basis and over the course of now 7 years (to include IIDB) in the variety of Political debates/discussions than you could fathom and YET I would not draw the conclusion you drew. Any way you can communicate realistically formulated opinions as to other members?

Careful about labeling them as hypocrites especially when there is no way you would have the necessary long term field of observation to draw any conclusion on their account.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I see nobody addressed CIA and Belgian Monarchy staging a coup in Kongo and murdering the first democratically elected Prime minister.

Are you encouraging other members to derail this thread the OP of which has nothing to do with "CIA and Belgian monarchy staging a coup in Kongo etc...". How about you cease to distract from the OP directed discussion?

 

[thief of fire]

delete

 

[thief of fire]

Since you mention you have an opinion regarding the specific of whether Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea violated the Terms and conditions of Article 6 of the Treaty of partition, what is your opinion then?

Ukraine had no legitimate government in Kiev. They had some neo nazi thugs and various others that had no right to be governing.

What you won't explain is why you are such a big fan of these thugs, who were murdering people, and why you won't condemn what they did.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that the thugs in Kiev were a legitimate government.

 

[thief of fire]

US still supported (if not orchestrated) illegal coup in Ukraine

The problem is that Americans (and their supporters) think that if they install an illegal government then that government must be legitimate. We see that time and time again in this thread, where they can't seem to even consider the view that the people in power at that time were criminals.

How can that be?. After all the Americans were meeting with them. And we all know the American government doesn't meet with criminals. <rolls eyes>

 

[barbos]

I see nobody addressed CIA and Belgian Monarchy staging a coup in Kongo and murdering the first democratically elected Prime minister.

Are you encouraging other members to derail this thread the OP of which has nothing to do with "CIA and Belgian monarchy staging a coup in Kongo etc...". How about you cease to distract from the OP directed discussion?

As far as I am concerned this thread is about US and west orchestrating illegal coups to overthrow democratically elected governments.
Certain individuals claimed that constitutional monarchies would never do such a thing. I demonstrated it to be false, not only they would do such a thing they would go and murder Prime Minister, not to mention that they would encourage separatism when it suits them.

 

[thief of fire]

Even though I have mentioned all these points in previous pages. I'm going to say it all again
Had there been a legitimate elected government still in Kiev the Russians would have had to talk with them and abide by whatever agreements were in place.
But this was not the case. We had a bunch of nationalist thugs who America had essentially brought into power, illegally, who were and are persecuting Russians.

Russia was no more obligated to deal with these thugs than America is to go and talk to ISIS.

All the people arguing for "invasion" are telling us we should have recognized these murdering thugs. But these people won't come out and say that. But everything they write asks us to accept that nothing had happened in Kiev and that the democratically elected government was still in power

 

[Togo]

Sure. In general what I look for is an argument that makes sense. Whether I agree with the arguer or not makes less difference than whether it is well put together. A decent argument can be used again, it can go around the world, and be used with people we've never met. It changes the world. Whether I agree or not, it's significant, and I can spread it, or try and find a problem with it. A rubbish argument, by contrast, is useless. It doesn't convince anyone, it usually undermines the point being made, and there's no earthly point in doing anything with it.

When this thread started, there were some serious points being made. Not very convincing ones, I thought, but at least people were trying to build a case. By this stage, however, it's becoming apparent that not only is there no coherent argument behind the points that were being made, but that the opinion you're pushing was never based on those points in the first place. I understand that you find US media appalling - so do I. I understand that you are worried about right-wing extremists in the new regime in Kiev, so am I. I understand that you think that Russia has a valid security concern, and I think there's a point to be made there.

But if you're stuck on trying to make out that an armed military takeover of a neighbouring region isn't an invasion, that a hasty referendum held by armed soldiers producing a suspiciously high 93% approval rate is somehow a demonstration of public opinion, and that the suppression of internal dissent somehow isn't political, then we're kinda done. Barbos has already abandoned argument entirely in favour of just chanting at people, and you're just trying to criticise America as if it made any kind of difference to the Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine whether the US has a high incarceration rate or corrupt politicians.

I'm asking you to have a good hard look at the arguments you're pushing. Not the position you hold, the arguments. And ask yourself if even you would find them convincing. Because at the moment it just looks like a mess.

No ..I was more interested in why you hold the position you held before this thread started. You had much the same views and sniping in the previous forum, so your views on this issue are from way before this thread. How did you arrive at your position...and what is your position on the Ukraine? It seemed to me,that when you began to post on this and related topics in the old forum, you began with an anti-Russian stance. You never made arguments about it, and it was that that surprised me then.

I don't believe that's the case. Can you give an example of this thread where I expressed an anti-Russia stance while never making arguements, or addressing them?

It's quite common that I don't express my own opinion - some posters find this habit frustrating - because again my interest is primarily in the arguements. I don't tend to snipe at positions at all, only poor reasoning. And that's because poor reasonsing doesn't leave me an arguement to analyse.

But know considering that Russia already had troops there. Considering that they had just uncovered evidence that the US and NATO had backed a coup in Kiev with large Neo Nazi elements I don't consider it an invasion.

Then history contains very very few invasions. Stationing troops in foreign countries, and supporting political groups in opposition to the legitimiate government, are both very common.

What you can't do is argue that because neo-Nazis are bad, and because the US is bad, it's somehow not an invasion. The badness of the opponent and the extent to which it was an invasion are unrelated. Since you plug in 'neo-Nazi' at every opportunity, I don't feel you've really grasped that.

And I consider it hypocrisy for so many here to be screeching about it when they never complain about real invasions. They aonly complain about this faux invasion.
It's amusing.

Then why are you immitating the arguments used to promote those wars - that the evilness of the opposition force somehow makes it irrelevnet whether what is being done is illegal? If anything you're arguing, strongly and repeatedly, that every US invasion you've ever complained about was justified - because you're ok with it when Russia's doing it.

 

[Ford]

Since you mention you have an opinion regarding the specific of whether Russian military personnel stationed in Crimea violated the Terms and conditions of Article 6 of the Treaty of partition, what is your opinion then?

Ukraine had no legitimate government in Kiev. They had some neo nazi thugs and various others that had no right to be governing.

What you won't explain is why you are such a big fan of these thugs, who were murdering people, and why you won't condemn what they did.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that the thugs in Kiev were a legitimate government.

Your whole argument is based on repeating the unsupported assertion that the Kiev government is run by Nazis, then implying that if anyone doesn't support Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, they must be Nazis as well.

 

[thief of fire]

Ukraine had no legitimate government in Kiev. They had some neo nazi thugs and various others that had no right to be governing.
What you won't explain is why you are such a big fan of these thugs, who were murdering people, and why you won't condemn what they did.
Your whole argument is based on the premise that the thugs in Kiev were a legitimate government.

Your whole argument is based on repeating the unsupported assertion that the Kiev government is run by Nazis, then implying that if anyone doesn't support Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, they must be Nazis as well.

It is irrelevant who is in government now, we are talking about then.

 

[Ford]

Your whole argument is based on repeating the unsupported assertion that the Kiev government is run by Nazis, then implying that if anyone doesn't support Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, they must be Nazis as well.

It is irrelevant who is in government now, we are talking about then.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeZ9HhHU86o[/YOUTUBE]

 

[thief of fire]

What you can't do is argue that because neo-Nazis are bad, and because the US is bad, it's somehow not an invasion. .

You are just building a strawman now.
You seem to have some anti-Russian stance that requires you building straw men rather than dealing with arguments.

The argument is that the government was "illegal". Not that the people were bad.

 

[Ford]

The argument is that the government was "illegal". Not that the people were bad.

So does this mean you're retracting your repeated allegations that the people are "thugs" and "neo-nazis?"

 

[Togo]

What you can't do is argue that because neo-Nazis are bad, and because the US is bad, it's somehow not an invasion. .

You are just building a strawman now.
You seem to have some anti-Russian stance that requires you building straw men rather than dealing with arguments.

Strawman argument, and you know it.

I'm assuming this is why there was a sudden interest in my integrity as a poster?

The argument is that the government was "illegal". Not that the people were bad.

Where is the argument you put forward that your claims about the Ukrainian government somehow justify the Russian invasion and occupation? Have you done anything to promote this position more than merely assert it?

Is you opinion in any way effected by the upcoming election?

 

[Daioh]

Had there been a legitimate elected government still in Kiev the Russians would have had to talk with them and abide by whatever agreements were in place.

So Russia is allowed to invade other countries if it doesn't like the leaders? Or think they shouldn't be in power?
Or
Is Russia allowed to invade other countries without any consequence if the country is going through political transition or instability?

 

[barbos]

Had there been a legitimate elected government still in Kiev the Russians would have had to talk with them and abide by whatever agreements were in place.

So Russia is allowed to invade other countries if it doesn't like the leaders? Or think they shouldn't be in power?

Good idea, why should US be the only country with this right?