HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Canadian-led battle group...

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:22 AM

 

Canadian-led battle group will deploy to Latvia, part of NATO move to deter Russia

Source: CBC (Canada)

By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Jul 08, 2016 4:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 08, 2016 5:36 PM ET

Canada will send a battle group of soldiers to Latvia by early 2017 as part of a NATO plan to counter fears of Russian aggression in eastern Europe, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed Friday.

The roughly 450 Canadians will form the nucleus of a robust multi-national combat battalion, part of a brigade to provide credible deterrence against further Russian expansionism in the region.

That number could fluctuate depending upon negotiations with other allies who are expected to help fill out the ranks for an open-ended mission, which Canada's chief of defence staff says raises the stakes for any nation thinking of interfering in the Baltics.
~
In addition, the Liberal government renewed a commitment to provide six CF-18 fighter jets for air policing duties over the Baltic states, a mission the air force last conducted in 2014.

The deployment of a navy frigate as part of NATO's standing task force — something that was first ordered by the former Conservative government — will continue as well.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cananda-nato-baltic-troops-1.3669952



Deploying troops and weapons? Well that's not very polite, eh!

130 replies, 9075 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 130 replies Author Time Post
Reply Canadian-led battle group will deploy to Latvia, part of NATO move to deter Russia (Original post)
Night Watchman Jul 2016 OP
Name removed Jul 2016 #1
newthinking Jul 2016 #2
cstanleytech Jul 2016 #3
Purveyor Jul 2016 #4
uhnope Jul 2016 #8
Cayenne Jul 2016 #5
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #9
uawchild Jul 2016 #11
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #13
uawchild Jul 2016 #14
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #17
uawchild Jul 2016 #18
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #19
uawchild Jul 2016 #21
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #25
uawchild Jul 2016 #26
uhnope Jul 2016 #42
stevenleser Aug 2016 #51
uawchild Jul 2016 #15
treestar Aug 2016 #58
uawchild Aug 2016 #59
Cayenne Jul 2016 #22
uawchild Jul 2016 #24
stevenleser Aug 2016 #56
uhnope Jul 2016 #16
Cayenne Jul 2016 #28
AntiBank Jul 2016 #34
uhnope Jul 2016 #41
stevenleser Aug 2016 #50
stevenleser Aug 2016 #49
uawchild Aug 2016 #60
stevenleser Aug 2016 #61
uawchild Aug 2016 #62
stevenleser Aug 2016 #63
uawchild Aug 2016 #65
stevenleser Aug 2016 #66
uawchild Aug 2016 #67
stevenleser Aug 2016 #68
uawchild Aug 2016 #69
stevenleser Aug 2016 #70
uhnope Aug 2016 #71
uhnope Aug 2016 #72
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2016 #77
uhnope Aug 2016 #78
stevenleser Aug 2016 #80
uawchild Aug 2016 #82
stevenleser Aug 2016 #83
uawchild Aug 2016 #84
stevenleser Aug 2016 #85
uawchild Aug 2016 #86
stevenleser Aug 2016 #87
uawchild Aug 2016 #88
stevenleser Aug 2016 #89
uawchild Aug 2016 #90
stevenleser Aug 2016 #91
uawchild Aug 2016 #92
stevenleser Aug 2016 #93
uawchild Aug 2016 #94
stevenleser Aug 2016 #96
uawchild Aug 2016 #99
stevenleser Aug 2016 #100
uawchild Aug 2016 #102
stevenleser Aug 2016 #103
uawchild Aug 2016 #104
stevenleser Aug 2016 #106
uawchild Aug 2016 #109
stevenleser Aug 2016 #110
uawchild Aug 2016 #111
stevenleser Aug 2016 #112
uawchild Aug 2016 #113
stevenleser Aug 2016 #114
uawchild Aug 2016 #115
stevenleser Aug 2016 #116
uawchild Aug 2016 #119
stevenleser Aug 2016 #120
uawchild Aug 2016 #121
uhnope Aug 2016 #95
stevenleser Aug 2016 #97
uhnope Aug 2016 #98
stevenleser Aug 2016 #101
Cayenne Jul 2016 #20
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #23
Cayenne Jul 2016 #27
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #29
Cayenne Jul 2016 #30
cstanleytech Jul 2016 #31
Ghost Dog Jul 2016 #35
cstanleytech Jul 2016 #37
NuclearDem Aug 2016 #55
Cayenne Jul 2016 #36
stevenleser Aug 2016 #64
locks Aug 2016 #46
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2016 #48
LanternWaste Aug 2016 #53
roamer65 Jul 2016 #33
Cayenne Jul 2016 #40
amandabeech Aug 2016 #57
JackRiddler Aug 2016 #73
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2016 #79
Cayenne Aug 2016 #118
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2016 #125
Cayenne Aug 2016 #126
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2016 #127
displacedtexan Aug 2016 #47
JackRiddler Aug 2016 #75
LanternWaste Aug 2016 #52
NuclearDem Aug 2016 #54
tavernier Aug 2016 #105
Jnclr89 Jul 2016 #6
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #10
uawchild Jul 2016 #12
JustABozoOnThisBus Jul 2016 #44
uawchild Jul 2016 #45
uhnope Jul 2016 #7
cstanleytech Jul 2016 #32
Night Watchman Jul 2016 #38
cstanleytech Jul 2016 #39
uhnope Jul 2016 #43
JackRiddler Aug 2016 #74
uhnope Aug 2016 #76
JackRiddler Aug 2016 #107
uhnope Aug 2016 #129
stevenleser Aug 2016 #81
JackRiddler Aug 2016 #108
stevenleser Aug 2016 #117
uhnope Aug 2016 #122
stevenleser Aug 2016 #128
Post removed Aug 2016 #123
uhnope Aug 2016 #124
Quantess Aug 2016 #130

Response to Night Watchman (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:45 AM

2. There is an objective to all this and it is not "Russian Aggression"

The trouble is that it is playing a very dangerous game in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:56 AM

3. Before 2014 I probably would have agreed however Russia is in an expansionist mood

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:14 AM - Edit history (1)

and has shown it wont hesitate to invade a neighbor which is far more provocative than simply stationing troops in a country with the lawful consent of said country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:48 AM

4. ..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:02 AM

8. just how much do you admire that guy, anyway?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:00 AM

5. "Russian Aggression" is a myth

There is no proof that the Russians are preparing to take any territory in the Baltics. It is a fabrication of NATO otherwise provide some credible evidence that Russians have been planning to invade the Baltics.

NATO is preparing to retake Crimea by force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:16 AM

9. Russia took Crimea by force, with a fig leaf of Russian equipped & secretly manned 'Crimean' forces.

NATO is NOT preparing to use force to free Crimea. No way is NATO even thinking of invading Russia.

NATO sanctions are working very well on Putin's Russia. His economy was sputtering before and now it is contracting. So therefore he is sabre rattling to divert attention at home away from his awful management of the economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:43 AM

11. Russia took Crimea by force?

Really? What was the death toll? Was it less than the 100,000 dead Iraqis when we invaded Iraq?

Ok, forget Iraqi, let's not let that distract you. You claim Russia took Crimea by force and not at the willing request of the people of Crimea. Ok, so what was the death toll from this Russian Agression?

ZERO, wasn't it? I might be wrong so please correct me -- what do you think the death toll was in Crimea? And no moving the goal posts by talking about the rebels in eastern Ukraine, please stick to Crimea. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:13 AM

13. Unmarked Russian forces with local militias, before the referendum, against UN resolution.

After the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and flight of the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych from Kiev on 21 February 2014, the Kremlin was interested in returning Crimea to Russia.[35] Within days, unmarked Russian forces with local militias took over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, as well as occupying several localities in Kherson Oblast on the Arabat Spit, which is geographically a part of Crimea. Following a controversial referendum, the official results of which showed majority support for joining Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty of accession with the self-declared Republic of Crimea, incorporating it into the Russian Federation as two federal subject: the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution calling upon states not to recognise changes to the integrity of Ukraine.[36][37] Russia withdrew its forces from southern Kherson in December 2014. -- Wikipedia


"moving the goalposts", hunh? Hence you introduce Iraq. We see you moving the goalposts. It would be best if you did not do what you try to prohibit others from doing in discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:20 AM

14. Avoidance noted

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:55 AM - Edit history (3)

You failed to answer the question asked. What was the death toll?

Are you embarrassed that it was ZERO? That does seem to undermine your claim that Russia took Crimea by force and not with the willing participation of the people of Crimea.

Well, at least your last post DID mention the LOCAL Crimean militias that helped secure Crimea during the turbulent period of the coup in Kiev. Did I say coup? I meant turbulent over throw of the corrupt elected government in Kiev. Thank god the elected corrupt Ukrainian government was replaced by an unelected corrupt Ukrainian government.

So, according to YOUR OWN article, instead of taking Crimea by force, as you claim, Russia helped local Crimean militias to secure the region and then a referendum was held that was supported by the MAJORITY of Crimeans to be annexed. Wow that sure doesn't seem like Russia took Crimea by force.

But back to the question at hand, what was the death toll when Russua annexed Crimea?

ZERO, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #14)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:03 AM

17. Force is not always marked by death. No avoidance. Russia used force to take over the Crimea.

You are avoiding logic.

If you stand over me with a baseball bat and demand I give you some money, there may be no injury or death, but force is used to obtain a result.

In fact, a few people did die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #17)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:11 AM

18. Lol can't admit you might be wrong?

The Crimea, according to your own article, was annexed with the willingness of the majority of the Crimean people.

And ZERO PEOPLE WERE KILLED, no?

Edit added: wait I was wrong. Six people did die.

During the Crimean crisis from 23 February through 19 March 2014, six people were killed. The dead included: three protesters (two pro-Russian and one pro-Ukrainian),[5][6][7][8] two soldiers[9] and one Crimean SDF trooper.[10] The two Ukrainian soldiers who were killed are regularly included in the military death toll from the War in Donbass.[11]

So three people on each side of the dispute were killed. I was wrong. Off by six.

See how easy it is to own up and admit when you are wrong? Why don't you own up and do the same?

But, please, don't allow these facts get in the way of you saying Crimea was annexed by force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:15 AM

19. The referundum was not a true and proper referendum so there was not "willingness of the majority".

But I am through debating with you since you don't address the points and don't use logic.

I would not be surprised if you are based in St. Petersburg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #19)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:22 AM

21. more McCarthyism here on DU?!?

Lose an argument so you accuse me of being a foreign agent? Here on DU? Good lord

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:34 AM

25. No accusation. Written carefuly, so read carefully. You're overly-sensitive & only u think u win. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:38 AM

26. It's rampant McCarthyism n/t

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #26)


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 02:59 PM

51. Exactly. A vote under foreign occupation must ALWAYS be assumed to be illegitimate. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:31 AM

15. Wasn't Iraq worse than Crimea?

Ok maybe we do need to talk about Iraq to give some perspective to the issue of the annexation of Crimea.

I'd be reluctant to compare the Iraq War with the annexation of Crimea too if I were you.

One killed ZERO people (edit: actually 6 people died, sorry) (Crimea) and the other killed hundreds of thousands (invasion of Iraq)

Which one do you think was a greater danger to world peace and the safety of the civilian populations? Me, personally I feel our invasion of Iraq was.

Which do you think was worse, Iraq or Crimea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 03:47 PM

58. No, didn't we have world support then?

For the most part. We were taking out Saddam, not trying to take over part of Iraq and add it to the US. This was supposedly because Saddam was going to get WMD. Nobody in Ukraine or Crimea seems to be a threat in that vein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #58)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 03:49 PM

59. I take your point

but I had death totals in mind. We now know the Iraq War was a huge mistake in so many ways. Compare Iraq today to Crimea today if you would. The former is in shambles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:26 AM

22. They had a huge parade

This is what the Russian 'invasion' looked like. The vintage T-34's must have been especially fearsome.

?t=5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #22)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:32 AM

24. lol

That's in Belorus, no? lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 03:28 PM

56. Looks familiar, where have I seen that before?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:03 AM

16. my god. Putin lovers really do live in an alternate reality. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:56 AM

28. Putin haters are dangerous to the peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:45 PM

34. +10000

 

It's so telling that neocons or hawk necon enablers on here always fall back to a pathetic "you are a Putin lover" ad hominen when there is any dissent from a rush to war with the the 2nd or 3rd most powerful military on the planet. They love encirclement, they love poking the bear. It's an extraordinarily dysfunctional and dangerous stance for the West to take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #28)

Sun Jul 10, 2016, 05:02 AM

41. drive-by one-liner Orwellian apologia

 

must be new tactic taught at the farm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 02:58 PM

50. Yep. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 02:52 PM

49. Killing is not required for one to wage an unprovoked war of aggression. See the Austrian anschluss

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

Austria was annexed by the Third Reich on 12 March 1938.[4] There had been several years of pressure from supporters in both Austria and Germany (both Nazis and non-Nazis) for the "Heim ins Reich" movement.[5] Earlier, Nazi Germany had provided support for the Austrian National Socialist Party (Austrian Nazi Party) in its bid to seize power from Austria's Fatherland Front government.

In the face of rioting by the small, but virulent, Austrian Nazi Party and ever-expanding German demands on Austria, Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg called a referendum (plebiscite) on the issue, knowing that the majority of Austrians would vote in favor of maintaining Austrian independence. But before this could take place, Hitler threatened invasion, and demanded Chancellor von Schuschnigg's resignation and the appointment of the Nazi Arthur Seyss-Inquart as his replacement. Hitler's plan was for Seyss-Inquart to call immediately for German troops to rush to Austria's aid, restoring order and giving the invasion an air of legitimacy. However, the German Führer underestimated his opposition. Schuschnigg did resign, but President Wilhelm Miklas initially refused to appoint Seyss-Inquart as Chancellor. Hitler, tired of waiting, ordered the invasion to commence at dawn on 12 March.[6] By the time Seyss-Inquart could send his telegram, it was relatively clear to the rest of the world that the request was theatrics. Schuschnigg's plebiscite was cancelled by the newly installed Nazis.
-----------------------------------------------
You will notice that in the Nuremburg War Crimes trials, the Austrian Anschluss is mentioned numerous times as part of the indictments even though exactly zero people died in the Anschluss.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/nurem.htm

The Anschluss was also ratified by a "vote" just like the Crimean "vote". 99.7561% of the votes cast in Austria were in favor of the Anschluss. If you believe that "vote" anymore than you believe the Crimean "vote" I have one of several nice bridges here in the NYC area to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 04:06 PM

60. Sorry, but I do believe Austria, as a nation, joined the Third Reich willingly

What Made Austria Welcome Hitler
First, did the Austrians welcome the Germans and Hitler in 1938? Of course, they did. With hindsight, it is very easy to blame the Austrians. But before doing so, one should try to recall the desperate economic and political situation then prevailing in Austria. Without going into great detail, it can be safely said that it was so desperate that Austria as a whole lacked the will and confidence to stay on its own course and certainly welcomed anybody who promised change. Austria welcomed Hitler because it thought that things could not become worse, only better.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/13/opinion/l-what-made-austria-welcome-hitler-164833.html

Austria Welcomed Hitler, and Its Anti-Semitism Persists
The Big Three foreign ministers' decision of 1943 to declare Austria Hitler's first victim was probably justified for political and psychological reasons while the war against the Nazis was still going on. But to perpetuate this myth of a rape does not serve Austria's new generation.

Here are some of Dr. Jankowisch's omissions. It was the very same veteran Socialist leader, Karl Renner, cited by him as abolishing all Nazi laws in 1945, who on April 2, 1938, appealed to Austrians to vote ''yes'' in the April 10 plebiscite that legitimized the Anschluss; 99.3 percent of them followed his advice, and this was for once no trumped-up figure, as can be testified to by anyone, like me, who witnessed the enthusiasm with which the Austrians welcomed the Germans and Hitler himself.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/30/opinion/l-austria-welcomed-hitler-and-its-anti-semitism-persists-129701.html


There are TONS of articles showing Austria was not a victim but joined with Hitler willingly.

It was a cold war political decision to declare Austria "the first victim", as per the NY Times: "The Big Three foreign ministers' decision of 1943 to declare Austria Hitler's first victim was probably justified for political and psychological reasons while the war against the Nazis was still going on. But to perpetuate this myth of a rape does not serve Austria's new generation."

Another example:

Voluntary, forced voluntary, or forced accession?
Since the end of the Second World War, historians, politicians and the public in Austria and abroad have debated the same questions: Was the "Anschluss" - the union of Austria and the German Reich - voluntary or forced? Were the Austrians victims or collaborators?
Rath
Ari Rath, a Vienna-born Jew, fled to Palestine aged 13
At the time, Ari Rath, a Vienna-born Jew, was 13 years old. He still vividly remembers March 12. "My brother and I went to see my grandmother. We wanted to make sure everything was OK. We weren't surprised to see swastika flags on the houses. But what shocked us was that Vienna's entire police force was equipped with swastika armbands. We knew that that must have been prepared beforehand." And it certainly was.

One month before the Anschluss, on February 12, Hitler had dictated an agreement to Austria's Chancellor Schuschnigg at a meeting on the Obersalzberg, a mountainside retreat on the border between Austria and Germany. The agreement stipulated that Hitler's close follower Arthur Seyss-Inquart was to become Austria's minister for domestic affairs, giving him control over the Austrian police. In addition, Hitler forced the Austrians to lift the existing ban on his party, the NSDAP, in their country. That cleared the way to prepare the Anschluss from below, because Austrian Nazis had long infiltrated Austria's executive and administrative bodies.

One day after the Wehrmacht invaded Austria, on March 13, the Reichsgesetzblatt (the National Law Gazette) that was published in Berlin, published a new "law on the reunification of Austria with the German Reich," signed by the Führer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Two days later, Hitler made a public appearance on Vienna's central Heldenplatz (Heroes' Square) in front of a cheering crowd of 250,000. Hitler praised the German-Austrian unity of shared destiny, and the two countries' shared history and mission. He used the Nazi term "Ostmark," or eastern march (or border region), for the newly incorporated territory.
"From now on, the German Reich's oldest Ostmark will be the newest bastion of the German nation and the German Reich." The two countries' common enemy, Hitler said, was the Communist East. The last words of his speech were drowned by frenetic applause that lasted for minutes. "As Führer and Chancellor of the German nation and Reich I proclaim the entry of my birth country into the German Reich."
http://www.dw.com/en/austria-debates-its-role-in-the-nazi-era/a-16664190

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #60)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 04:27 PM

61. People have debated that point, but it's irrelevant.

 

You have to have a vote BEFORE the foreign troops are occupying you for it to be legitimate.

Everything else is besides the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #61)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 04:39 PM

62. it was YOUR example of a bloodless invasion

and you claimed the vote was invalid!

I gave proof that it wasn't an "invasion" and that the majority of Austrians willingly supported joining Germany at that time.

Moving the goal posts now is simply disingenuous.

The facts remain as they are, the Austrians joined Germany willingly and the Crimeans joined Russia willingly. The aftermath in both regions showed this.

In this era of people power, are any masses of people protesting in the city squares in Crimea as they did during the coup attempt in Turkey -- where people were being KILLED in Istanbul -- nope, nada, not happening. Why? Because in pretty overwhelming numbers Crimeans are glad they joined Russia.

If all you have is "the vote should happen first", well who is going to argue against THAT? Not me.

But you are really arguing the vote does not reflect the will of the majority, and that is where you are provably wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #62)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 06:32 PM

63. That's right it was. And the point stands. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #63)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 06:46 PM

65. Not according to slews of historians

Austria was a willing participant in the Anschluss and joined with Nazi Germany willingly.

But why bother repeating myself.

The fact remains only 6 people, three on each side of the issue, died during the overwhelmingly peaceful annexation of Crimea because that was what the overwhelming majority of Crimeans desired.

Crimea remains peaceful for the same reason. But hey, I pointed that out in my last post also.

If you have a real example where a region was invaded and annexed against its will with as little loss of life, by all means please post it. Trying to insist against the weight of evidence that Austria is such an example is simply disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #65)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 07:23 PM

66. The historians all agree that the anschluss was a war crime, just like Crimea. That's my point.

 

An unprovoked war of aggression is a war crime. What Putin did, and what you are trying to minimize is a war crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #66)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 08:41 PM

67. The historians do not all agree

that Austria was a victim of the Anschluss, I posted examples where it's shown the Austrians, as a nation, willingly joined Germany.

Sorry but you just don't get to ignore uncomfortable facts.

This is the third time you have brushed aside evidence against your assertion that the Anschluss was a blood less "invasion". It wasn't an invasion at all.

You keep wanting to distort history because I pointed out only 6 people, 3 on each side, died during the overwhelmingly peaceful annexation of Crimea. And that I attribute this fact to the vast majority of Crimeans WANTING to be annexed.

I think I have supported both these points sufficiently, unlike your failure to prove Austria was "the first victim" of nazi aggression. It simply was not, the Austrians were willing accomplices.

I am done. Having to make the same point three times is my limit for one night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #67)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 09:00 PM

68. Yes they do all agree that it was a war crime. Sorry you don't get to make stuff up

 

Unless you can point to text where they explicitly say the Anschluss was not a war crime, once again, my point stands.

Your attempt to create a straw man by changing the discussion to what some historians think the Austrians wanted is completely besides the point. There is no argument against the Anschluss being a war crime. A foreign country taking over your country before any vote on the subject is an unprovoked war of aggression and a war crime, regardless of arguments after the fact about whether people believe the action was wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 09:13 PM

69. Don't move goal posts, your point was debunked

Austrians committed war crimes during the period the Anschluss was in effect. THAT is well documented, as a nation Austria became a willing participant in the Holocaust and other Nazi horrors.

But the Austrian nation WILLINGLY embraced unification with Nazi Germany. That has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

During the Cold War, Austria was treated wrongly as a victim state. Fortunately that myth has been thoroughly debunked.

Continue to ignore reality if you choose, but I can only give hair splitting arguments a limited amount of credence.

I am really done. Lol cheers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #69)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 09:35 PM

70. A straw man is not a debunking, its a logical fallacy. My point stands.

 

My point is as it has been since the beginning and you have done nothing to remotely touch it.

The anschluss was a war crime, the Russian invasion of Crimea was a war crime.

You have done nothing to argue against either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #70)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:07 AM

71. before wasting more of your time

 

you might want to review what others have discovered:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1513587

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #68)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:29 AM

72. thank you for taking on a DUer defending Nazi war crimes comparable to Putin's takeover of Ukraine

 

Last edited Fri Aug 5, 2016, 05:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Unbelievable that is going on here. Steve, how much more of that RW BS do you think we'll have to take?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #72)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 05:46 AM

77. [reply made moot after post edited]

[reply made moot after post edited]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #77)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 05:48 AM

78. sorry, Bernardo, I was not referring to Steve but to his interlocutor.

 

I will edit it to make that clear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #72)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 08:41 AM

80. If I hadn't read Orwell's notes on Nationalism, I wouldnt believe it or understand from where it

 

comes.

Folks like the Putin defenders under this OP are negative nationalists with the US as their target. See http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Any antagonist of the US will be a hero to such folks and they will excuse any of their behavior. I'll bet Putin's defenders here have some admiration for jihadists who engage in terrorism and various other unsavory folks. They won't admit it because they know that would not go over well. But they think they can get away with Putin worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #80)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:43 AM

82. Ad hominem attacks and uhnope?

Wow, that's your last resort?

Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #82)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:46 AM

83. Nope, my arguments to you are my arguments to you. I was talking with uhnope and

 

explaining what Putin apologists are all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #83)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:51 AM

84. uhnope. Steven Steven Steven

How your standards have fallen. Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #84)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:58 AM

85. And you were talking about being ad-hominem? This is the problem with all your arguments

 

You don't see how ridiculously contradictory you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #85)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:05 AM

86. Don't like me laughing at your new Bestie?

Laughing at your new best friend isn't an ad hominem attack since I wasn't using it as a point in an argument. I am just amazed that you let his blatant behavior posting TO YOU slide by. Here, read this:

uhnope wrote:

"thank you for taking on a DUer defending Nazi war crimes comparable to Putin's takeover of Ukraine

Unbelievable that is going on here. Steve, how much more of that RW BS do you think we'll have to take?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1542923

THIS is why I get to laugh at uhnope and his intellectual dishonesty.

Where's your outrage here, Steven? No one, especially not me, defended nazi war crimes.
I just insist that the AUSTRIANS actually be held accountable for their actions and not be treated as "the first victim" of Nazi aggression. The Austrians were WILLING accomplices with the Nazis. You know that, I know that, the world knows that.

For example:

Despite open displays of remorse about the Nazi era, the 70th anniversary of Austria's annexation has inevitably revived a long-running debate about whether its citizens were victims or willing accomplices of the Third Reich.

Public reluctance to confront the issue was underscored this week by Otto von Habsburg, the 95-year-old son of the country's last emperor. He told a meeting of the ruling conservative People's Party: "No state in Europe has a greater right than Austria to call itself a victim." He went on to dismiss an Allied wartime declaration that Austria shared responsibility for the Nazis as "hypocrisy and lies". The thousands who greeted Hitler were just like "high-spirited football fans", he insisted.

His remarks followed publication of an opinion poll on Tuesday which showed that almost two thirds of Austrians wanted an end to what was described as the "endless discussion" about the country's role during the Second World War. (The result of a similar poll conducted eight years ago was the same).

However, new evidence and a growing mass of research about Austria's role during the Third Reich suggests that the argument that the vast majority of its citizens were willing accomplices to Nazi rule has become incontrovertible.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anschluss-and-austrias-guilty-conscience-795016.html

So have fun hang in with your new bestie. lol



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #86)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:08 AM

87. He didn't lie, he was right on. That's what you did. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #87)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:21 AM

88. Wow, you have hit rock bottom.

QUOTE me defending NAZI WAR CRIMES.

You can't, all you can do is try to insist the Austrians, as a nation, were victims and me pointing out how historians feel they were more like willing accomplices.

Good lord, have your standards fallen this low that you have to resort to this level of distorting what I have clearly stated over and over again?

Here read THIS:

However, new evidence and a growing mass of research about Austria's role during the Third Reich suggests that the argument that the vast majority of its citizens were willing accomplices to Nazi rule has become incontrovertible.

Less than a month after German troops marched into Austria, Hitler ordered that the invasion be ratified by plebiscite. The poll conducted on 10 April 1938 showed that 99.75 per cent of Austrians were in favour of the annexation. Subsequent claims that the results were doctored by the Nazis were later substantiated. But recent research suggests that the actual number in favour of Nazi rule was still about two thirds of the electorate.

Professor Gerhard Botz, a historian at Vienna University who has researched the period closely, said yesterday: "Hitler was welcomed into the country as a successful Austrian who was returning home from abroad and suddenly letting his own people take part in his successes. He was a sort of ersatz monarch."

Gershon Evan, an Austrian Jew whose parents were arrested and killed by the Nazis, recalled during a television broadcast yesterday how quickly racial persecution took hold in Vienna, a city in which every 10th citizen was then Jewish. "What happened in Germany over five years, happened in Vienna in five days," he said. "We had no idea that we would face such violence."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anschluss-and-austrias-guilty-conscience-795016.html

YOU owe me an apology, but I feel you are so lost trying to win an argument that you won't be able to admit you just went WAY over the line.

I am done with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #88)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:36 AM

89. I've already laid it out for you several times. You are so determined to defend Putin you dont see

 

it. Here it is in numbered list form:

1. I provided you a link showing support and architecting the Austrian Anschluss was in the indictment list of war crimes against the top criminals tried at Nuremberg.

2. You and I both agree that the Austrian Anschluss by Germany and the Crimean takeover were similarly bloodless (or relatively bloodless) takeovers after which, under occupation, plebescites were used to try to show that the population was in favor of the takeover.

3. An unprovoked war of aggression is a war crime whether it is by the third reich or Putin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression . The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”

4. Regardless of whether historians think the population of Austria or Crimea may have wanted the invasions, there was no vote indicating that. Without such a vote and without UN or International Community sanction, those acts are war crimes.

5. You are justifying both the Austrian Anschluss and the Crimean invasions. Hence, you are engaging in apologia for war crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #89)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:48 AM

90. "You are justifying both the Austrian Anschluss" That's a flat out lie.

You don't get to try and slip a lie like that by. I have never JUSTIFIED the Anschluss.

QUOTE ME JUSTIFYING THE ANSCHLUSS. You can't. Just as you could not quote me DEFENDING NAZI WAR CRIMES.

Good lord.

I am HOLDING both the Germans AND the AUSTRIANS responsible for the Anschluss. The Austrians were NOT the "first victims" of a war crime, they were COMPLICIT with the NAZIS. Scholars have researched and found that at a MINIMUM 2/3 of Austrians voted to join Germany. The ANSCHLUSS was not a "bloodless" invasion as you insist, it was more a joining of like minds and done with the OVERWHELMING support of the Austrians.

Again READ THIS:

However, new evidence and a growing mass of research about Austria's role during the Third Reich suggests that the argument that the vast majority of its citizens were willing accomplices to Nazi rule has become incontrovertible.

Less than a month after German troops marched into Austria, Hitler ordered that the invasion be ratified by plebiscite. The poll conducted on 10 April 1938 showed that 99.75 per cent of Austrians were in favour of the annexation. Subsequent claims that the results were doctored by the Nazis were later substantiated. But recent research suggests that the actual number in favour of Nazi rule was still about two thirds of the electorate.

Professor Gerhard Botz, a historian at Vienna University who has researched the period closely, said yesterday: "Hitler was welcomed into the country as a successful Austrian who was returning home from abroad and suddenly letting his own people take part in his successes. He was a sort of ersatz monarch."

Gershon Evan, an Austrian Jew whose parents were arrested and killed by the Nazis, recalled during a television broadcast yesterday how quickly racial persecution took hold in Vienna, a city in which every 10th citizen was then Jewish. "What happened in Germany over five years, happened in Vienna in five days," he said. "We had no idea that we would face such violence."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anschluss-and-austrias-guilty-conscience-795016.html

Again, YOU owe me an apology, but I feel you are so lost trying to win an argument that you won't be able to admit you just went WAY over the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #90)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:53 AM

91. So a war crime is OK if Putin does it but not if the Third Reich does it. OK, I stand corrected.

 

I was giving you the credit for being consistent but now I see you're not even that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #91)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:03 AM

92. And the CONCESSION of DEFEAT finally comes

as the goal posts get moved in a feeble attempt to retreat with the smallest shred of dignity intact.

All joking aside, you owe me an apology for agreeing with your new bestie that I defended Nazi War Crimes.

I never did and you just admitted that fact.

Man up and apologize.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #92)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:05 AM

93. Yes, YOUR defeat. Your hypocrisy on war crimes is laid bare for all to see. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #93)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:11 AM

94. No apology for saying I defended NAZI WAR CRIMES? Ok...

We all see you can't admit when you are wrong. So it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #94)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:17 AM

96. Yeah, um, you are defending Putin's war crimes. I don't apologize to those who engage in apologia

 

for war crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #96)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:25 AM

99. Are those goal posts shifting made of straw? lol

Steven, you really should apologize for agreeing with your new best friend, uhnope, that I defended NAZI WAR CRIMES.

Your inability to be intellectually honest enough to apologize when you were clearly wrong remains telling.

Just apologize, admit your mistake made in the heat of the discussion and then move on.

Your reluctance to apologize reflects badly on you.

Playing word games and trying to start a new argument just makes you look more dishonest.

Just apologize, you were proven wrong and saying I DEFENDED NAZI WAR CRIMES is so over the top it deserves an apology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #99)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:38 AM

100. Nope, while you have created straw men, I have been saying the same thing since my first

 

message to you. Once again, because I have the feeling I will be saying this a few more times to you before it sinks in:

1. The Russian invasion of Crimea was a war crime.

2. The Austrian Anschluss was a war crime very similar to that of the Russian invasion of Crimea.

3. I have provided you evidence, in the form of a link, that support of and architecting the Austrian Anschluss was on the list if indictments for the war crimes trials against top Nazis in Nuremberg.

4. You are an apologist for Putins war crime in invading and annexing Crimea.

I have been saying the same things since my first message to you in #49 above http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1542391 while you have been all over the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #100)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:47 AM

102. YOU JUST EDITED OUT THE PART YOU GOT CAUGHT LYING ABOUT. lol

PREVIOUSLY you said more:

Here it is in numbered list form:

1. I provided you a link showing support and architecting the Austrian Anschluss was in the indictment list of war crimes against the top criminals tried at Nuremberg.

2. You and I both agree that the Austrian Anschluss by Germany and the Crimean takeover were similarly bloodless (or relatively bloodless) takeovers after which, under occupation, plebescites were used to try to show that the population was in favor of the takeover.

3. An unprovoked war of aggression is a war crime whether it is by the third reich or Putin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression . The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”

4. Regardless of whether historians think the population of Austria or Crimea may have wanted the invasions, there was no vote indicating that. Without such a vote and without UN or International Community sanction, those acts are war crimes.

5. You are justifying both the Austrian Anschluss and the Crimean invasions. Hence, you are engaging in apologia for war crimes.

=============

THAT LIE in NUMBER 5 disappeared in your latest post. lol

The fact remains you LIED when you said I justified the Anschluss and you agreed with the lie that I DEFENDED NAZI WAR CRIMES.

And now you resort to lying about what you "saying the same thing" all along? lol

Dude, you EDITED OUT THE PART YOU GOT CAUGHT LYING ABOUT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #102)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:52 AM

103. Nope, I was confused about your support for the same war crime in one case and not another.

 

But that was not in my first response. It's your fault that anyone would be confused about that since it makes no sense to be an apologist for the exact same war crime in one case and not another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #103)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:04 PM

104. Still not intellectually honest enough to apologize?

Sorry, but you still really need to apologizes for agreeing with your new best friend that I defended NAZI WAR CRIMES.

You are desperately trying to avoid admitting you were simply proven wrong.

So it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #104)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:10 PM

106. Still not intellectually honest enough to admit you are supporting a war crime?

 

That's the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #106)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:18 PM

109. You are desperately trying to change the subject. You should be apologizing instead.

When you agreed with your new best friend accusing me of DEFENDING NAZI WAR CRIMES, you lost all credibility.

You were proven wrong and still you are not intellectually honest enough to simply apologize.

The depths you have fallen to in making that accusation in this discussion has simply been astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #109)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:21 PM

110. Nope, once again, that has been my point since my first response to you.

 

We're on your sixth or seventh gyration as far as your contentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #110)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:25 PM

111. Sorry you don't get to slip away while making false accusations

You and your best friend accused me of DEFENDING NAZI WAR CRIMES and were proven so wrong and did not apologize.

You simply want to avoid apologizing. We get it.

Thanks for making it so clear that you want to toss out indefensible accusations like that and then slink away from them when called out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #111)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:27 PM

112. Thats right, you don't get to slip away after being an apologist for Putin's war crimes.

 

Still waiting on your response to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #112)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:36 PM

113. Still waiting for your apology

You don't get to accuse me of DEFENDING NAZI WAR CRIMES and not get called out on it.

Man up and apologize, you can do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #113)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:37 PM

114. What apology? You are in fact an apologist for war crimes. Own it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #114)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:43 PM

115. You really should just apologize

Saying that I defended NAZI WAR CRIMES was so beyond the pale. You were proven wrong and now you just keep making empty vague pronouncements that I am an apologist, in an unspecified way, for unspecified war crimes.

What you should be doing is manning up and saying that you spoke too rashly and were wrong. Saying you were sorry would go along way to rehabilitating your credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #115)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:53 PM

116. Nope, I noted very specifically for which war crimes you are an apologist. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #116)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:08 PM

119. Yep, I noted specifically what false accusation you should apologize for. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #119)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:09 PM

120. And I noted that no apology is necessary, the confusion on that point is your fault. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #120)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:11 PM

121. It's important you apologize to not cheapen real accusations of anti-semitism

Last edited Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

It's important you apologize to not cheapen real accusations of anti-semitism and real opposition to apologia for NAZI horrors.

Trying to score debating points by painting me as a defender of NAZI WAR CRIMES is simple a disservice, it was a blatantly false accusation, all it does is detract from those opposing very real anti-semitism.

You have already decided to just avoid your personal responsibility in this regard by not apologizing.

My efforts to point out that Austrians were willing accomplices to the NAZI horrors is about as far from actual NAZI apologia as one can get.

I kept playing post ping pong with you just in the hope you would finally own up and apologize for making a false allegation concerning NAZI war crimes, but, sadly, that did not happen.

Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself for abusing the issue of actual NAZI apologists in the manner you did here.

And, honestly, I am truly done replying to you, your intellectual dishonesty in at first defending this false accusation and then continuing to not apologize for it leaves you very little credibility, and hence not worth replying to.

Welcome to my ignore list. Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #91)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:15 AM

95. I tried to warn you but you had to find out the hard way!

 

As someone else said about a certain special pleader.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141513359#post19
But I am through debating with you since you don't address the points and don't use logic.

I would not be surprised if you are based in St. Petersburg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #95)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:17 AM

97. I'm like a cat who likes playing with a caught mouse. Except in this case, the mouse kills itself at

 

the end.

That person has admitted that Crimea and the Anschluss are essentially the same and that they are an apologist for the war crime in the one situation but not the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #97)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:20 AM

98. yep...and then they thought they won! unbelieveabe. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #98)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:42 AM

101. English may not be their first language. Their first language is probably written in Cyrillic

 

so there may be some translation issues going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:17 AM

20. Have you heard SoS Kerry lately?

He means to get Ukraine back and has just explicitly said so. Russia is not, no way, no how, going to give up Crimea so I do assume he means force.

He has also explicitly given al Assad until August 1 to vacate or else. You can guess what 'or else' means.

So did you come up with a link where Putin is making plans on an invasion of the Baltics? What threat has he made?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #20)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:31 AM

23. Yes, the West does not readily recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea

but ...

Your assumption that the West will begin using force is the Crimea is just an assumption that is not backed up by any facts and is on the face of it extremely unlikely due to the destabilizing effect that it would have on NATO-Russia relations and the ensuing high likelihood of massive war. It is your assumption.

Western force in the Crimea? Not going to happen. Conceivably could happen as a result of a much bigger much wider conflict started somewhere else first, but not going to happen on its own.

I never said Putin was planning to invade the Baltics and I do not have to put up any such link. That's a red herring.

The threat is his use of force in the Crimea and in the Ukraine.

By analogy, if your neighbor tramples the flower beds belonging to his neighbor on the other side, it would be prudent to build a fence between you and your neighbor. Building such a fence does not depend on knowing or seeing any plan to trample your flower beds. It would simply be a cautious way to prevent problems.

This whole thing is much like Robert Frost's echoing of a long-time [font color="purple"]New England[/font] saying that "Good fences make good neighbors".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #23)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:53 AM

27. NATO is explicitly planning a war

based on the premise that Russia is about to invade the Baltics. Otherwise why is NATO spinning up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #27)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:59 AM

29. I just explained why NATO is not planning a war.

NATO is planning in case of war but not to start a war. You can rest assured that the Pentagon has plans for what to do if Canada or Mexico or Venezuela started a war against the US. That does not mean the USA plans to invade Mexico.

Use logic. 450 Canadians, though they are excellent soldiers, are not going to defeat 20,000 Russian troops and march to Moscow.

Prudent installation of a fence does not mean that you are going to firebomb your neighbor's house.

Please read my post #23 again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:03 PM

30. Yes they are, Syria is going to get hot

The operation to remove Assad takes a different tack starting about August 1. Russia will react somehow that the NATO planners are anticipating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:19 PM

31. Use your head please. Neither NATO nor the US will start a war with Russia as the risk is to great

for it to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
This is purely a defensive force meant more to show Russia that NATO will protect itself if Russia decides to continue its war of expansion by trying to annex another country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #31)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:37 PM

35. There is no "war of expansion".

It is NATO (neocon) psyops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost Dog (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 05:23 PM

37. Uh huh tell that to the Ukrainian government. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost Dog (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 03:23 PM

55. A quarter of Georgia has been occupied, and Crimea has been annexed.

 

Sorry, but your claim is utter bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #31)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 05:04 PM

36. SU-24 shootdown

No, the US and NATO can't really start a war but they have a work around for that. Turkey will throw the first punch and take the next hit. Viola! The neocons get their war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 06:33 PM

64. At first I thought you were being serious. Now I know you are joking.

 

You had me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 01:10 PM

46. I am sorry to see Robert Frost's poem

used in this kind of disagreement. Frost was being ironic when he wrote "Good fences make good neighbors." His "Mending Wall" is a polemic against building walls that separate and alienate us from our neighbors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locks (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 02:37 PM

48. Fences are different from walls. You can talk through fences, but not walls. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 03:01 PM

53. Poetry is different from literalism.

Poetry is different from literalism. As per Frost himself, poetry requires us to examine the sentiment rather than deconstruct words. Good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #20)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:23 PM

33. I expect all out war in the ME right around October.

Once the summer heat breaks, things are going to get more "lively" over there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #33)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:13 PM

40. yup

The laughable veneer of 'moderate' rebels will have fully rubbed off revealing only head chopping salafists and our support of them. Should the US backed rebels win, women would become property and minorities purged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 03:29 PM

57. Crimea's importance to Russia may have peaked.

 

Media coverage of everything other than the campaign has been minimal for at least a couple of months, and international coverage has declined precipitously.

One story missed is that Russia has been expanding its Black Sea port of Novorossiysk to accommodate its Black Sea Fleet. In a few months to a year, the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet will move from Stevastopol, Crimea, to Novorossiysk, Russia. There will probably be ships docked in Crimea, but it will not be such a big deal.

Really, it was dumb of Putin not to do this sooner. Crimea, whether it is Ukrainian or Russian territory in fact or in law, has no land bridge to Russia. It depends on Ukraine for electricity and fresh water. Russia can only supply it by sea, or over a huge bridge that is being built on Crimea's east end. Such a bridge cannot be secure--it would be easy to blow up. Russia has been aiding eastern Ukrainians to fight their way to the point where Ukraine hooks on to Crimea, but it isn't going well.

When Novorossiysk is fully operational, the situation with Russia and Ukraine will probably calm down some, and the Baltic situation will probably follow suit. At that point, the Europeans will probably want to start dismantling the trade sanctions, because Russia has been a huge consumer of European products, from French and Dutch foods and beverages, to German machine tools.

The Chinese situation, however, will not go away, and problems in the Middle East will go on as they have been almost as long as I can remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:53 AM

73. No they did not.

 

They were already occupying Crimea, where they have 90+ percent support of the Russian population. I guess the coup d'etat government in Kiev should not have declared war on the Russian-speaking citizens of the Ukraine, encouraging the Crimeans to run to Moscow for protection.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the NATO propaganda about a threat to the Baltic states, which is setting up pretty much the dumbest confrontation ever. The neocon-neoliberal-neoimperialist posturing has barely been noticed in the U.S., where you can be certain most people would be horrified if they could actually figure out that the U.S. is setting up for a possibly nuclear war with Russia. This is in not in our people's interest!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #73)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 05:56 AM

79. Your post is internally contradictory.

"They were already occupying Crimea". That occupation was an occupation in force. Russian forces rolled in and held positions.

The US is not "setting up for a possible nuclear war with Russia".

NATO (including the US) is preparing for a possible war if Russia pushes its aggression. Such a war is extremely unlikely to go nuclear.

Further, such a war is extremely unlikely to happen in the first place, because NATO is showing resolve.

The US and NATO have not invaded Russian territory. [font color = "purple"]There is no geopolitical incentive for them to do so.[/font] They will not.

You cannot show any geopolitical incentive for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #79)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:02 PM

118. NATO in Ukraine is their red line

Believe it. And I do believe NATO is planning in invasion of Crimea, Kaliningrad, and Syria. Somehow they think they can have this limited war with Russia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #118)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 05:00 PM

125. When do you think your war is going to happen? What evidence do you have other than speculation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #125)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 06:46 PM

126. Kerry laid out Aug 1

But Turkey possibly defecting put the kibosh on that plan. I don't know when but Secretary of State Kerry will give a clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #126)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 06:48 PM

127. Ha ha ha haaa har!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 01:56 PM

47. If "Russian Agression" is a myth, Canada would not be doing this.

Canadians are not stupid. Neither would they send troops for no reason.

I don't know about you, but I trust Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to displacedtexan (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:56 AM

75. Yeah, why bother to figure anything out for yourself.

 

Just trust "Canada."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 02:59 PM

52. No doubt, you have peer-reviewed, objective evidence to support this creative allegation

No doubt, you have peer-reviewed, objective evidence to support this creative allegation of yours, yes? Or is simply an imaginative fabrication on your part to better validate your own biases?

(and please make sure you understand both "peer-review" and "objective" prior to posting biased editorials)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 03:22 PM

54. Ask Ukraine or Georgia if they think it's a myth.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cayenne (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:08 PM

105. I like to think you're joking.

My Latvian ancestors who were deported to Siberia over several generations disagree with you. My relatives in Latvia who endure DAILY Russian interference and implied threats disagree with you.

I travel to Latvia and have observed the terror that Putin and his followers cause to the residents. The country is littered with gravestones, tears, broken hearts and broken families. This is no myth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:23 AM

6. How dumb to announce stratigic battle

 

plans to the open public 6 mo's in advance. Dumb, Political, all the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jnclr89 (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:20 AM

10. Wrong. Very smart to announce deployment so that nobody makes any false moves in reaction

You don't want to deploy troops suddenly in a surprise move and then have the other side make a mistake in their reaction.

This is NOT a BATTLE. Where did you get that nutty idea? No battle has been announced. There is no battle planned and it is extremely unlikely (say one chance in ten thousand?) that one might happen.

Note how "strategic" is spelled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jnclr89 (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:47 AM

12. The strategic plan really is

To publish as many Cold War II hysteria news articles as possible that say RUSSIAN AGRESSION. This particular NATO deployment has been in scores of articles over the last month or so. Expect it to get mentioned in scads more too -- and each time RUSSIAN AGRESSION will be mentioned to feed the Cold War II hysteria and warmongering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uawchild (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 10, 2016, 08:03 AM

44. How many Crimeas and Ukraines are necessary ...

... before the words "Russian Aggression" apply?

Hysteria?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #44)

Sun Jul 10, 2016, 08:47 AM

45. How many Iraqs and Afghanistans

Before the double standards stop?

"American Agression" has killed more people and ruined more countries, hasn't it? Yes it has.

So, yes it's hysteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:01 AM

7. Godspeed.

 

Latvia will be breathing a little easier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:20 PM

32. Emphasis on "little" as that number of troops is more symbolic than anything. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 06:15 PM

38. of course

 

Even during the Cold War, the West knew it couldn't win a conventional ground war against the Red Army in Europe. All this move does is move the nuclear tripwire east.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Reply #38)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 06:37 PM

39. I would not say the west couldnt win such a war rather it probably would

be difficult to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Reply #38)

Sun Jul 10, 2016, 07:51 AM

43. that's hyperbole--there's no "nuclear tripwire".

 

What this does is give further assurance to Latvia & the world that Russia won't try to do to Latvia what it did to Ukraine. Even the headcase Putin is not likely to risk actual war with NATO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:55 AM

74. Yay! Turn Latvia into a battlefield on the basis of neocon fantasy!

 

Get those commies! Get them!!! Better dead than red!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 02:01 AM

76. you sound like Trump

 

mixed with regressive derangement.

Piss on our NATO responsibility that NATO countries defend each other in case of attack, and anyone who says otherwise is a "neocon".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #76)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:13 PM

107. Oh, I am wounded.

 

You sound like MacArthur. And McCarthy. Whatever. If you have absolutely nothing to say and no clue about what you are talking about, the move henceforth will just be to invoke "Trump" and pretend you win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #107)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 12:48 PM

129. how about I sound like McCartney?

 

lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 08:43 AM

81. 1st problem with your post is that Russia is no longer communist or even socialist.

 

Not much is left of your argument after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:18 PM

108. WOW! YOU ARE SO DAMN SMART!

 

Thanks for reminding me that the Soviet Union fell apart! I totally forgot!

Unfortunately, New Cold Warriors like yourself haven't noticed. You are switching a few labels and otherwise perpetuating the same patterns of propaganda into the new age. As long as there is a credible enemy image to prop up your Junior Geostrategist's fantasy that "America," always the best, must dictate terms to everyone everywhere at all times.

PS - http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/sorry-but-sarcastic-people-are-actually-smarter-than-you-are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #108)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:54 PM

117. Nope, just correcting a simple mistake in your post. Not a big deal. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #117)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:28 PM

122. jeez this sure became a meltdown thread for them Putinistas, didn't it?

 

Last edited Fri Aug 5, 2016, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

what's up with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #122)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 10:23 AM

128. More negative nationalism on display. As Orwell noted it makes people nutty

 

If anything regarding some hated entity must show it in decline or in the wrong, it's going to make some of your positions look completely nutty. The same is true if you worship some entity to the point that everything about it has to be right and ascending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #117)


Response to Post removed (Reply #123)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 02:23 PM

124. be careful when you wage war of the weak wiki links

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Night Watchman (Original post)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 03:00 PM

130. Interesting.

Riga is a cool and affordable city to visit for a couple of days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread