|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 4 hours, 52 minutes
|
|
The media has been trying to sell us this "Putin wants to return to the glory days" red scare bullshit since Ukraine, I didnt know people were actually buying it.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
"Crimea wants to rejoin Russia. Putin is such a bully!"
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
perikleous
Stranger

Registered: 04/22/15
Posts: 277
Loc: EuroZone Victim
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Russia cannot go pro full democracy not because they do not want to, the progressive moves made since the new mellinium show they want it!
They want what they saw in US up until the new mellinium!
They do not have that option because there are to many people connected to US policy that are conspiring to divide the country and do there what has been accomplished in Europe, a lapdog doing US bidding!
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
Honestly though, territorial exchanges should be subject to some sort of international review, right? Hitler's Germany initially annexed regions that supported the move and the US annexed friendly Texas and less friendly California.
Its not as though the US doesn't have numerous critics in the UN or various international courts. China tut tuted Russia's actions in Ukraine too. Crimea joining the Russian federation should have been a slow, boring legal process, not a military occupation and referendum under gunpoint
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 4 hours, 52 minutes
|
Re: War and Politics [Re: Crumist]
#23650083 - 09/16/16 10:16 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Annexing Texas wasnt all that friendly.
We went to war over it.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
Re: War and Politics [Re: Crumist]
#23650320 - 09/16/16 11:59 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Crumist said: Honestly though, territorial exchanges should be subject to some sort of international review, right?
If East Germany and West Germany WANT to reunite, why should they need permission from other countries?
Of course I might agree with you if one of the territories had no interest (such as Crimea being gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev without Crimea's consent).
Quote:
Crumist said: Crimea joining the Russian federation should have been a slow, boring legal process, not a military occupation and referendum under gunpoint
I think we both know if Crimea stayed with Ukraine, the US would never have allowed it to go back to Russia, regardless of what the Crimean people want.
It's funny that you choose to use the words "military occupation". If Russia hadn't accepted Crimea, there'd be the same level of violence there now as there's been in the rest of Eastern Ukraine. Roughly 10,000 people have been killed in Donbass, vs only 6 people in Crimea (source). Russian speaking people are being slaughtered in Donbass.
It's also funny that you say the referendum was "under gunpoint". I've already provided evidence that the election results were very much in line with public opinion, and there is no evidence to back your "under gunpoint" myth.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (09/16/16 01:34 PM)
|
perikleous
Stranger

Registered: 04/22/15
Posts: 277
Loc: EuroZone Victim
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: War and Politics [Re: Crumist] 1
#23654688 - 09/18/16 01:49 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Had Crimea not been annexed, the Russian military base would have been converted to a NATO base by now!
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
perhaps. either way, everyone should have known that russia couldn't allow that as a possibility.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
perikleous
Stranger

Registered: 04/22/15
Posts: 277
Loc: EuroZone Victim
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
What makes what Russia is doing(supporting Russian speaking peoples) in the east Ukraine, supporting rebels in a civil war (as being stated by US media), how is that wrong, when US is supporting opposition forces(rebels) in Syrian civil war (as US MSM is stating) and trying to partition/section/split up the country!
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
why does it have to be about right and wrong?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
perikleous
Stranger

Registered: 04/22/15
Posts: 277
Loc: EuroZone Victim
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: War and Politics [Re: ballsalsa]
#23655877 - 09/18/16 02:27 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I will rephrase it. What makes it different from what the US is doing in Syria? Aside from the fact that what happens in Ukraine directly affects Russia due to proximity and relations where as US has No ties to Syria and its half way around the world as far as US citizens are concerned!
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
different specifically, or different in principle?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: War and Politics [Re: ballsalsa]
#23658599 - 09/19/16 12:14 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Sir Basil Hart again: (he's my go-to theorist in case you couldn't tell already)
Quote:
While there are many causes for which a state goes to war, its fundamental object can be epitomized as that of ensuring the continuance of its policy--in face of the determination of the opposing state to pursue a contrary policy. In the human will lies the source and mainspring of conflict. For a state to gain its object in war it has to change this adverse will into compliance with its own policy. Once this is realized, the military principle of "destroying the main armed forces on the battlefield", which Clausewitz's disciples exalted to a paramount position, fits into its proper place along with the other instruments of grand strategy--which include the more oblique kinds of military action as well as economic pressure, propaganda, and diplomacy. Instead of giving excessive emphasis to one means, which circumstances may render ineffective, it is wiser to choose and combine whichever are the most suitable, most penetrative, and most conservative of effort--i.e. which will subdue the opposing will at the lowest war-cost and minimum injury to the post-war prospect. For the most decisive victory is of no value if a nation be bled white in gaining it. It should be the aim of grand strategy to discover and pierce the Achilles' heel of the opposing government's power to make war. And strategy, in turn, should seek to penetrate a joint in the harness of the opposing forces. To apply one's strength where the opponent is strong weakens oneself disproportionately to the effect attained. To strike with strong effect, one must strike at weakness. It is thus more potent, as well as more economical, to disarm the enemy rather than attempt his destruction by hard fighting. For the 'mauling' method entails not only a dangerous cost in exhaustion but the risk that chance may determine the issue. A strategist should think in terms of paralyzing, not of killing. Even on the lower plane of warfare, a man killed is merely one man less, whereas a man unnerved is a highly infectious carrier of fear, capable of spreading an endemic of panic. On a higher plane of warfare, the impression made on the mind of the opposing commander can nullify the whole fighting power that his troops posses. And on a still higher plane, psychological pressure on the government of a country may suffice to cancel all the resources at its command--so that the sword drops from a paralyzed hand. To repeat the keynote of the initial chapter: the analysis of war shows that while the nominal strength of a country is represented by its numbers and resources, this muscular development is dependent on the state of its internal organs and nerve-system--upon its stability of control, morale, and supply. Direct pressure always tends to harden and consolidate the resistance of an opponent--like snow which is squeezed into a snowball, the more compact it becomes, the slower it is to melt. Alike in policy and in strategy--or to put it another way, in the strategy of both the diplomatic and the military spheres--the indirect approach is the most effective way to upset the opponents balance, psychological and physical, thereby making possible his overthrow.
underlines are mine for emphasis.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
|