blah a wall a text, I'll read it and reply sometime later, maybe. Anyways I want to take this moment today as I will ever day from now on like the harpy I am, to thank you for president trump.
You can ignore it, no problem. Reading with comprehension's not your strong suit, that's a lot of words, and you have no actual reply anyway. I have no doubt of your dedication to the effort of blaming 4chan's designated blameworthies. You will have increasing motive to blame somebody according to the 4chan/CNN bubble, because the world is going to increasingly diverge from it, and the strain will be a threat. You, and the rest of the bubblewrap crowd, are at stage five of this: http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php...of_a_project_enthusiasm_disillusionment_panic And this would be trivial, certainly nothing we haven't seen before (the abuse directed at people like me after W won in 2000 set the bar), except that public rejection of the libertarian left rejects with them some of their core issues - mostly economic viewpoints and recommendations, but not entirely. Example: electoral fraud and manipulation. People like me have been emphasizing the danger of this, Trump's is the third Presidency in the past five whose winning margin was probably fraudulent, but its basis in racism means that 1) it is a partisan issue - the racism-dependent Republican Party has a vested interest in voter suppression and electoral fraud to prevent black and brown people from deciding elections, and 2) the Dems who have been trying to avoid the topic of racism when talking to white people would have to take it head on to do something about electoral swindling. It's white people swindling and blocking black and brown people out of their votes, after all. So it's convenient to dismiss it in tandem with the left libertarians who have most strongly emphasized it. btw: Interestingly enough, you will be joined in your efforts not only by the framing sources of your worldview, 4chan and Breitbart and Fox and CNN et al, but also by a great many Trump and Hillary supporters themselves - as in the wake of Katrina, they will seek company in their betrayal, and will overlook your thinking they were stupid as long as you join them in blaming somebody else for what they did and why. You will still share their view of the world, after all - (Clinton's elitist PC supporters doing all that namecalling and pressuring her about bathrooms are "the left" for both of you, for example) - a natural ally. And so the next round begins, with the entire discussion still framed by Breitbart and 4chan and the aftermath of talk radio's glory days and the further spread of Fox framing into every major broadcast and most cable news sources.
Once you don't even recognize that I have not claimed any government control of the press in America, this is simply nonsensical cheap polemics. I have not made claims about Putin's motives or goals. To speculate about motives of particular persons is in general not a good idea, and most of the time nothing honest, but a primitive personal attack. If the speculation is about leaders of enemy states, it is usually propaganda. Joepistole starts with a defense of his nonsensical claim "Using the same line of reasoning, your beloved Mother Russia needs no defense at all." Indeed, my attack was a little bit misguided, because it is well-known that if joepistole uses whatever line of reasoning, the result is usually nonsense. How some line of reasoning, which for the US leads to the conclusion "they would not need much defense at all", would, applied to Russia, lead to "Russia needs no defense at all", is beyond me, but I have, of course, not taken into account here the usual properties of joepistole reasoning. Soviet Union was not Russia, it was ruled almost all of the time by non-Russian leaders. The point being? I do not plan to defend Northern Korea. My point was simply an example where the UNSC has really made a decision to participate in a war. So, if not prevented by the participation of Russia, the UN could be used as a weapon to start wars by the US. This was an answer to your question: So, again, the UN is irrelevant only because there are reasonable members in the UNSC with veto power which prevent the UN becoming a relevant and dangerous weapon of the US. The fact is that the US is the only nation at all who has already used its nuclear arsenal in a war. Moreover, it has been used to murder mostly civilians in two horrible war crimes. But, of course, I do not suggest to nuke some pirates attacking US ships. I have written: "it would be cheap and easy enough for the US, given that it has nuclear weapons, to prevent everybody else from attacking the US". To handle a few pirates, a conventional military of the size of, say, Germany would be sufficient. For everything else, where forces of this size would be insufficient, the threat of nuclear retaliation would the sufficient. Yes. I have not claimed that it has. I claim that it would, if it would be allowed to become really relevant, to become a world government. A lot of usual joepistole propaganda nonsense disposed without comment.
You posted surprise, and suggested government punishment was being risked and defied, about a published interview with Assad. You have several times referred to US government coercion and influence on the US press and media - the risks being run by any journalist in the US who defies the US government line. You have posted claims about Putin's behavior which seem quite naive about the ordinary motives and goals of such behavior - when you have him aiding the Crimeans against the horrible fascist Ukrainian government because the oppressed asked for help, for example, or your description of the horrorshow he is enabling in Syria, where you deny he is bombing any Kurds apparently because such bombing would make no sense given his decent motives and defensible goals. Although I am in general agreement with your take on America's military in the world, that is not so: handling pirates globally, which is as they must be handled, takes considerably more and different military power than Germany can field. Whether that all is to come from the US, or some other country or countries, or the UN, or whether pirates should be ignored by government and their depredations handled by private corporate interests, I leave untouched.
Support your lies with quotes. The point is that I never claimed that it is "government punishment" or so which enforces effective control of the Western press, because I do not think so. This is done in a different way. And even more lies about my claims, without explicit quotes. In particular, I have never denied he is "bombing any Kurds". Of course, there are also Kurds among the terrorists, which are bombed, as well as among the civilians in regions under terrorist control, which may become victims of collateral damage. Russia did not bomb neigther YPG nor SDF, the main and only politically relevant Kurdish forces, and only in this sense it did not bomb "the Kurds". If you are not aware that the population of Crimea wanted Crimea to become part of Russia, and that they started an uprising after the fascist coup to defend themselves against these fascists, this is your problem, not my. See http://www.sciforums.com/threads/drain-the-swamp-oh-that-is-so-yesterday.158467/page-3#post-3428727 what they did before knowing what Putin would do or not do. It has nothing to do with Putin's intentions.
You never used the term "government punishment". You did presume governmental coercion and pressure and influence of some kind. And in absolute terms you were of course right about that - it's just that it doesn't have either the kind or direction of influence required for the claims you make about its effects. Not yet, anyway. We may see the US become more of the kind of regime you presume it is, partly as a result of an election in which you so misread the situation you thought Trump, an outright fascist, would be less of a warmonger and violence threatener than Clinton - an odd and paradoxical pattern familiar to Americans, in which propaganda victims often vote for exactly what they claim to be voting against. What you denied was my observation that Putin was bombing some Kurds but not others, and the obvious effect (which would be the starting point for guessing his intentions, presuming he is an intelligent person looking after his interests) is to teach the Kurds as a self-aware and self-recognizing people a lesson and divide them politically. So all Kurds would be politically relevant - not just "forces" or whatever - and of course the ones he bombed on purpose would be terrorists, by definition. Your denial took such forms as claiming that some of the ones he bombed weren't really Kurds, because they spoke a different language, and that bombing Kurds in terrorist controlled areas was unavoidable ("terrorist" being of course anyone defying the Assad regime), and so forth. Transparent excuses, in other words, for Putin doing exactly what I pointed out he seemed to be doing: bombing some Kurds, but not others, strategically, to bring them under Assad's rule and thereby into Russia's sphere of influence. I don't believe the population of Crimea was or is of one mind in the matter, especially about inviting the Russian army in to take over - which had to have happened before the uprising started, because there they were (out of uniform, but well armed). And nothing Putin does has nothing to do with Putin's intentions. Which is a general truism of such strongmen - including wannabes like Trump, which was something the Democrats missed during the campaign. The Dem presumption apparently was that Trump was so impulsive and undisciplined and scattershot and downright dumb that any implications of what he was doing - campaigning in Wisconsin, say, or preemptively accusing the Dems of vote rigging in Pennsylvania and Ohio - could be safely ignored as coincidences of irrational and disorganized behavior.
Oh that tickles. Well officiating and not accepting your mistakes is your strong points... Oh and thanks you for president trump
Please don't speculate about what I presume. Further lies about my claims about Kurds, again without any quotes which would support them (because it would be impossible), disposed. Of course, such a large entity never is of one mind, the number of those supporting Russia was >80%. Your claims about the Russian army are nonsense. First of all, the Russian army was there, in uniform, completely legal (Sevastopol was officially a Russian army base). Then, the Russian special forces appeared there 28.2., and they were also not out of uniform, simply the uniforms (which were easily identifiable as the same as of Russian speznas) were without Russian shoulder straps. The upraising was essentially peaceful, even in comparison with the Ukrainian maydan, and not much in need of weapons except for deterrence of the fascists. Most of the militias, which have been formed in these days, had no weapons, or only hunting weapons or batons, some weapons came from the police forces supporting the upraising, or were taken over from police stations. If you look at videos from that time, it is extremely easy to distinguish the Russian special forces and the Russian regular army from the Crimean militias, simply by looking at the uniforms and the weapons. Essentially the only thing done by the speznas was to protect the parliament and other important government buildings. The only thing the Russian army was doing then was, after the Crimean legal power asked for help, to block those Ukrainian army barracks which have been suspected to support the fascist coup in Kiev. The protection of the border between Crimea and Ukrainian mainland was done by the militias.
I didn't speculate, I read it in your posts. I don't believe 80% of the people in Crimea wanted the Russian army to occupy and annex them. You'll need some kind of first class argument from evidence to sell that one. That was later - after the uprising, which the people of Crimea spontaneously timed to coincidently match the marshaling of those uniformed Russian forces - organized and armed for occupation should anyone happen to request one - on their borders. We have a saying in the US: an unarmed people is subject to occupation by the Russian army at any time. (I reworded it a bit - "subject to slavery" is the original).
In this case, learn to read. This was not in any way an occupation and annexation, so that your statement is simply irrelevant propaganda babble. Then, I don't have to sell you anything, if you want to believe joepistole propaganda BS, that's not my problem. The population of Crimea had a reason for their timing of their own uprising - the fascist coup in Kiev. Some organizational structure has been developed already before - the antimaidan movement, as the reaction to the maidan in Kiev. So, they were prepared for this. But there was no reason for uprising as long as their elected president was yet in power. The uprising was their immediate reaction to the coup. Then, the only forces coming from Russia were small speznas (special forces) to secure a few important government buildings, in particular the parliament. There are good reasons to believe that they have done a little bit more - in particular some actions against the Ukrainian secret service forces. But not much more. Their main role was deterrence of the fascists. The later blockade of some Ukrainian barracks was done or by local militias, or by those forces already located at Crimea, as parts of the Sevastopol naval base. Here, similarly, the main role was deterrence of actions against the legal government of Crimea. The people of Crimea had some weapons. Not much, not powerful weapons, but they were not slaves, they were able and ready to fight the Bandera fascists.
According to Vladimir Putin, head of State of the Russian Federation, Crimea is currently annexed to the Russian Federation, after being occupied by Russian Federation soldiers. That appears to be an occupation and annexation - that's what it's called, in English, when territory is occupied by soldiers and annexed to their political origin. He gets points for doing it with so little bloodshed - a sign that it was at least tolerated by the population, although since they had little in the way of weapons it's hard to tell - and it was obviously very well organized and prepared long in advance. The problem is that it's not really ok to do that - occupying and annexing parts of other people's countries is something Russia is not supposed to be doing any more.
You need to take your own advice comrade Schmelzer, but your problem isn't a reading problem, is it? It's an honesty problem. It's more of problem moral turpitude problem with you and your Putina cohorts. Except it was, Russia has repeatedly illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed the lands of its weaker neighbors. We aren't in your beloved Mother Russia where the "truth" is whatever your beloved Putina says it is. The truth matters here. Virtually all the nations of the world have recognized and condemned Russia's illegal invasions and annexations. That's a fact comrade. That's a truth. It's one of the many truths you like to ignore and lie about. Except it wasn't an uprising comrade, and you know it. It was an illegal Russian invasion of Crimea. The UN has condemned by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262. That's one reason why your beloved Mother Russia is under international sanctions. Unfortunately for comrade the truth matters outside your beloved Mother Russia and we are not in your beloved Mother Russia. That's why your beloved Mother Russia is a rogue state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ts-abuses-un-accusations-claims-a7421406.html At first, neither you nor your beloved Mother Russia recognized those little green men in unmarked uniforms were Russian. In fact both you and the Russian state denied they were Russian. You and your beloved Putina asserted they weren't Russians. Now you finally admit the were Russian, and they came across the border under the cover of night and insufficient numbers to take over Crimea, and they did. Russia's forces are the fascists. There was no resistance prior to Russia's illegal invasion of Crimea. There were no "local militia's". Those "local militia's" were Putinia's little green men. The people of Crimea were and remain peaceful Ukrainian citizens, both before and after Putinias illegal invasion and annexation. Unfortunately for your comrade, facts matter, and the world is not as dumb and ignorant as you and your beloved Putinia need them to be.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603 That's the annexation. I think we have agreement on the influx of Russian soldiers and their continuing presence?
Yes, but we have a clear difference about the legal status. According to Putin, this is not an annexation, thus, your claim was a lie. You lie. I have seen them first 28.2., and immediately believed they are Russian speznas. I have seen a video of Russian helicopters moving to Crimea at 28.2. Not that but another one, but similar: And I never said anything different. The forces which have defended the parliament appeared already 27.2.: And I have cared about what Putin and other officials have said about this. What is correct is that they have not said, immediately, that this is Russian speznas. But they have also never denied this. In a press conference, Putin was asked about some men in some uniforms. Putin did not answer directly, only said, in his answer, that uniforms can be bought without any problem in any militaria shop. And smiled. I have been, after this press conference, even more confident that this is Russian speznas. Nonsense. There were the Bandera-fascist militias, and there was the anti-maidan Eastern forces, which immediately after the coup, 22.2. or 23.2, started to form militias. Here a video from 23.2. about how they were formed. They have been several thousands, afair five or so. As I already explained, it was easy to identify the Russian speznas which protected the parliament - real professionals, with professional weapons, and the runet was full of information where they came from, from the militias which had only a few weapons. Those with weapons (in particular, the Berkut police) were, of course, used at the most important points, in particular at the border. Like here: And here something about what happened to some pro-Ukrainian agitators at Crimea. Not very civilized from point of view of Western ideals - but if you have seen what was usual at the maidan, it was in comparison quite harmless. Some of these guys simply demonstrators, people, some others from the militia. Gives an impression about the power relations between pro-Russian and pro-Bandera forces on Crimea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xiqC7P5Ec
According to Putin, it is annexation. Russia once recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine. Now Russia doesn't. Russia held a rigged plebiscite on annexation, you know this too. No comrade, your claim is a lie, and you know it. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014–present) Well, here is the thing comrade, everything you have said has been widely denounced by the international community as false, and per my previous post and the references therein, everything you have posted here is false. You lie comrade. The United Nations has condemned Russia's invasions, occupations, and annexations of the lands of its neighbors. The United Nations has also condemned Russia's human rights violations in Crimea. Unfortunately for you and your Putinina cohorts, we aren't living in Russia. We can speak the truth here without being thrown in jail or murdered as would be the case in your beloved Mother Russia. The truth matters comrade. You should stop your lies. You should stop being a shill for Putin, even though I'm sure he pays you well. But is it worth your soul?
Why did the Dems lose? Simple. They nominated the most unlikable, damaged liar that they could find. It took a phalanx of slaves to carry her baggage. The old guard Dem establishment needs to be dumped out onto the street.
