Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Russia Allowed To Have 25,000 Troops In Crimea Since 1999... & Other Facts You May Not Know [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)69. Here's the indisputable refutation of the pro-Occupation Putinistas and that laughable 'fact' sheet
Read particularly 6.1 and 8.2
Game, set, match.
Team Putin loses, again.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Russia Allowed To Have 25,000 Troops In Crimea Since 1999... & Other Facts You May Not Know [View all]
Purveyor
Mar 2014
OP
This is rt.com crap. they're not allowed to leave their bases. what a dishonest piece of agitprop.
geek tragedy
Mar 2014
#1
Can you link to this provision that they are not allowed to 'leave their bases'?
Purveyor
Mar 2014
#2
It appears you have fled this thread much like your champion Yanukovych fled Ukraine.
geek tragedy
Mar 2014
#29
"Now scurry on over to Faux Knews, a trusted source to you I'm sure, for the citation."
Cha
Mar 2014
#55
The Problem, Sir, Is They Are Not Supposed To Go Off the Bases Without Permission
The Magistrate
Mar 2014
#3
Can you submit this 'treaty' for all of us here to peruse? I would love to see it. eom
Purveyor
Mar 2014
#4
Nice 'non-answer' but not surprised in the least. Carry on with your drivel...SIR. em
Purveyor
Mar 2014
#7
I'm free to support people who don't want to live under a newly 'selected' fascist
polly7
Mar 2014
#14
If You Don't Support The Right Fascist, Ma'am, The Wrong Fascist Might Be The Ruler
The Magistrate
Mar 2014
#18
It's not who you or 'I' support (I don't 'support' any fascist, apparently you have no
polly7
Mar 2014
#23
By Endorsing Russia's Imperialist Endeavor, Ma'am, You Are Supporting A Fascist
The Magistrate
Mar 2014
#25
And you are resorting to the same old 'you just love Hussein'! bullshit that was so popular
polly7
Mar 2014
#28
One would have thought that old 'playbook' would have been revised by now, indeed.
Purveyor
Mar 2014
#31
You Tell Everyone Who Who You Align With, Ma'am, By Standing Beside Them
The Magistrate
Mar 2014
#38
I Do Not Think That Word Means Quite What You Think It Does, Ma'am, In This Context
The Magistrate
Mar 2014
#44
So you insist on the right to call someone what they've asked you not to ... more than once?
polly7
Mar 2014
#112
Glad I Can Count On Your Assistance, Ma'am, To Keep this Up Near the Top
The Magistrate
Mar 2014
#115
Your OP brought out the NeoCon Democrats. It's like Iraq all over again. nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#40
Maybe if you give us a quote. I read the OP as anti-Neocon. Just like those that were against the
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#80
William Kristol is not calling Putin a great leader. The neocons want war. They, as always, claim
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#88
I said that Neocons want war. Is that "Russian propaganda"? Do you want war? nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#96
So you agree with Dick Cheney that we should consider military action? nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#102
No one in this thread is calling for war, yet you broke out the 'neocon' smear against
geek tragedy
Mar 2014
#105
Many of the cons are authoritarians, and Putin is the ultimate authoritarian leader.
amandabeech
Mar 2014
#104
This isnt about what Putin says. This is about those beating the war drums.
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#83
Right, because we're the ones defending an invasion based on trumped up pretext.
NuclearDem
Mar 2014
#77
It's too sad. Their hate machine only has one template with a blank spot for the country
Catherina
Mar 2014
#56
I gave polly7 the text saying they couldn't leave the designated areas a week ago
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2014
#68
Here's the indisputable refutation of the pro-Occupation Putinistas and that laughable 'fact' sheet
geek tragedy
Mar 2014
#69
Provide a link to the full said treaty. Selected articles of a treaty are suspicious to
Purveyor
Mar 2014
#54
"Selected articles of a treaty are suspicious to many" - WTF do you think your OP is?
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2014
#70