Mike_L wrote:Actually, the path to extremism of every stripe leads not through Moscow, but through Washington... whether it's support for jihadist 'rebels' in Syria, or meddling in Ukraine to the advantage of Neo-Nazis.

You posted a link from a guy who talked about how Britain is lost because it has too many brown people in it to support your argument. Some of your fellow travellers are not very nice people.

Just for sake of argument, while I agree the US meddled in Ukraine, do you really think Russia didn't? Or is it just that you think they have some sort of inherent right to meddle in Ukraine?

Alan C wrote:Meddling in Ukraine? That was and is fucking Russia with a dash of Manafort.

Manafort is being nailed on his failure to register as a foreign agent (as per the Foreign Agents Registration Act), but his chief crime is to have lobbied for the "wrong" side...

Manafort rebuffed U.S. Ambassador William Taylor when the latter complained he was undermining U.S. interests in Ukraine.

On the other hand...
Nuland,
Nuland and
Nuland
...was doing her influence peddling on the "right" side, so she's okay.

_________________________________

mrjonno wrote:

Mike_L wrote:Actually, the path to extremism of every stripe leads not through Moscow, but through Washington... whether it's support for jihadist 'rebels' in Syria, or meddling in Ukraine to the advantage of Neo-Nazis.

I would support funding ISIS is it meant stopping Russia (which we currently don't need to do), ISIS can blow my bus up on the way to work Russia can blow up the entire city

Love the sources, only worth checking what the source is. Don't waste your time actually reading the 'article'

Foreignpolicyjournal

Its purpose is to challenge the propaganda narratives presented by the mainstream media, which serve to manufacture consent for government policies

In other words someone basement

Youtube

Lots of people's basements

Thank god for basement dwellers, since some of those who work above-ground for "newspapers of record" are demonstrably untrustworthy.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Mike_L wrote:Actually, the path to extremism of every stripe leads not through Moscow, but through Washington... whether it's support for jihadist 'rebels' in Syria, or meddling in Ukraine to the advantage of Neo-Nazis.

You posted a link from a guy who talked about how Britain is lost because it has too many brown people in it to support your argument.

That's something of an oversimplification of what he's saying. It's about unchecked immigration changing the cultural identity of the UK and Europe, and how the influx serves to give Islamic extremism a foothold in those places.

Some of your fellow travellers are not very nice people.

Some of the US-UK-France's fellow travelers are not very nice people either.

Just for sake of argument, while I agree the US meddled in Ukraine, do you really think Russia didn't? Or is it just that you think they have some sort of inherent right to meddle in Ukraine?

Both sides have meddled.
Moscow sees US meddling in Ukraine as part of the NATO encroachment that threatens Russia, hence its counter-meddling (for want of a better term).
It's not "right", it's simply realpolitik. It is the aim of the US to "contain" Russia, and the natural response of the Kremlin to resist.

Mike_L wrote:
Moscow sees US meddling in Ukraine as part of the NATO encroachment that threatens Russia, hence its counter-meddling (for want of a better term).

You need to get your facts straight. Russia was meddling in Ukraine way before Europe/US did. They still think it's part of their "realm".

How do you define "meddling"? And when?

Having a pro-russian president appointed for example, that's meddling.

aban57 wrote:They still think it's part of their "realm".

Yes, that is what I suspect too. I think many Russians have problems coming to grips with their history and don't really regard the former Soviet republics as fully independent nations. (Although I do think Russia has legitimate claims for Crimea.) I remember Peter Hitchens saying in an interview that when a taxi driver drove him to Moscow airport for a flight to Kyiv, he brought him to the domestic departures area.

aban57 wrote:Having a pro-russian president appointed for example, that's meddling.

When was a pro-Russian president "appointed"?
Do you mean Viktor Yanukovych?
He wasn't appointed by Russia. He won the Ukrainian presidential election in 2010...

In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for President in the upcoming presidential election.[61] He was endorsed by the Party of Regions[62] and the Youth Party of Ukraine.[63]

Minister of Internal Affairs Yuriy Lutsenko accused Yanukovych of financial fraud during the campaign.[64] Yanukovych's campaign was expected to have cost $100 to $150 million.[65]

On 11 December 2009, Yanukovych called for his supporters go to Maidan Nezalezhnosti Kyiv's Independence Square in case of election fraud.[66]

Early vote returns from the first round of the election held on 17 January showed Yanukovych in first place with 35.8% of the vote.[67] He faced a 7 February 2010 runoff against Tymoshenko, who finished second (with 24.7% of the vote). After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko.[68] Tymoshenko withdrew her subsequent legal challenge of the result.[69]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Presidential_campaign_and_election

Mike_L wrote:

aban57 wrote:Having a pro-russian president appointed for example, that's meddling.

When was a pro-Russian president "appointed"?
Do you mean Viktor Yanukovych?
He wasn't appointed by Russia. He won the Ukrainian presidential election in 2010...

In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for President in the upcoming presidential election.[61] He was endorsed by the Party of Regions[62] and the Youth Party of Ukraine.[63]

Minister of Internal Affairs Yuriy Lutsenko accused Yanukovych of financial fraud during the campaign.[64] Yanukovych's campaign was expected to have cost $100 to $150 million.[65]

On 11 December 2009, Yanukovych called for his supporters go to Maidan Nezalezhnosti Kyiv's Independence Square in case of election fraud.[66]

Early vote returns from the first round of the election held on 17 January showed Yanukovych in first place with 35.8% of the vote.[67] He faced a 7 February 2010 runoff against Tymoshenko, who finished second (with 24.7% of the vote). After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko.[68] Tymoshenko withdrew her subsequent legal challenge of the result.[69]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Presidential_campaign_and_election

Yeah, just like Putin won the last election

Yeah Yanukovych was elected fairly. His party had huge support in the East of Ukraine.

Ukraine is an odd country and a mosaic of many languages and ethnicities, a friend of mine used to travel there (and he loved Odessa). He said many people in the Donbass don't see themselves necessarily either as Russian or Ukrainian, they still derive their sense of identity from the Soviet union. I think the referenda in Eastern Ukraine were flawed, but if organiing a fair referendum in those areas of the country could end the conflict, that would be a good thing.

The Party of Regions of which Yanukovych was a member also won big because their predecessors were seen as corrupt. With the poverty in the country I think a lot of people just voted for whoever they thought could improve their economic situation. Of course Yanukovych turned out to be just as corrupt.

aban57 wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

aban57 wrote:Having a pro-russian president appointed for example, that's meddling.

When was a pro-Russian president "appointed"?
Do you mean Viktor Yanukovych?
He wasn't appointed by Russia. He won the Ukrainian presidential election in 2010...

In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for President in the upcoming presidential election.[61] He was endorsed by the Party of Regions[62] and the Youth Party of Ukraine.[63]

Minister of Internal Affairs Yuriy Lutsenko accused Yanukovych of financial fraud during the campaign.[64] Yanukovych's campaign was expected to have cost $100 to $150 million.[65]

On 11 December 2009, Yanukovych called for his supporters go to Maidan Nezalezhnosti Kyiv's Independence Square in case of election fraud.[66]

Early vote returns from the first round of the election held on 17 January showed Yanukovych in first place with 35.8% of the vote.[67] He faced a 7 February 2010 runoff against Tymoshenko, who finished second (with 24.7% of the vote). After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko.[68] Tymoshenko withdrew her subsequent legal challenge of the result.[69]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Presidential_campaign_and_election

Yeah, just like Putin won the last election

It was by no means a one-horse race. Tymoshenko gave him a good run. And he certainly wasn't "appointed" by Russia.

aban57 wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

aban57 wrote:Having a pro-russian president appointed for example, that's meddling.

When was a pro-Russian president "appointed"?
Do you mean Viktor Yanukovych?
He wasn't appointed by Russia. He won the Ukrainian presidential election in 2010...

In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for President in the upcoming presidential election.[61] He was endorsed by the Party of Regions[62] and the Youth Party of Ukraine.[63]

Minister of Internal Affairs Yuriy Lutsenko accused Yanukovych of financial fraud during the campaign.[64] Yanukovych's campaign was expected to have cost $100 to $150 million.[65]

On 11 December 2009, Yanukovych called for his supporters go to Maidan Nezalezhnosti Kyiv's Independence Square in case of election fraud.[66]

Early vote returns from the first round of the election held on 17 January showed Yanukovych in first place with 35.8% of the vote.[67] He faced a 7 February 2010 runoff against Tymoshenko, who finished second (with 24.7% of the vote). After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko.[68] Tymoshenko withdrew her subsequent legal challenge of the result.[69]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Presidential_campaign_and_election

Yeah, just like Putin won the last election

Arresting 1000 protestors that oppose you helps too.

Guys we've been over the Ukrainian affair in the Crimea thread already. Russia does not want NATO at its borders, accept it, even if you dont think reasonable because Russia is adamant about it, and move on.

Why aren’t hospital attacks a red line? - http://www.syriauk.org/2018/04/why-aren ... -line.html

Someone tell me why?

tuco wrote:Guys we've been over the Ukrainian affair in the Crimea thread already. Russia does not want NATO at its borders, accept it, even if you dont think reasonable because Russia is adamant about it, and move on.

Why aren’t hospital attacks a red line? - http://www.syriauk.org/2018/04/why-aren ... -line.html

Someone tell me why?

It's a deplorable crime.
Assad has done it. Russia has done it. The US has done it. The Saudis are busy doing it in Yemen.
Perhaps the only reason no side has declared it a 'red line' is because all sides are doing it.

So Israel attacks Iran positions in Syria. Then they prepare for retaliation, and when it happens, accuses Iran to attack them. In the same time, the baboon in chief puts Iran in a position where they might start developping nuclear weapons again (which probably won't happen right now, according to Iran's will to stick to the agreement with the 5 remaining ountries), which they did anyway while the treaty was effective, according to... Israel's pseudo informations.
It feels like Israel wanted to start a war with Iran, and the US gave them the justification they needed. It's a little too late however, now Assad pretty much ended the civil war in Syria, they'll be able to focus on everything Israel will attempt there. And the US won't do much because of Russia.
I really can't see how Isreal or the baboon thought they could win anything with this.

aban57 wrote:So Israel attacks Iran positions in Syria. Then they prepare for retaliation, and when it happens, accuses Iran to attack them. In the same time, the baboon in chief puts Iran in a position where they might start developping nuclear weapons again (which probably won't happen right now, according to Iran's will to stick to the agreement with the 5 remaining ountries), which they did anyway while the treaty was effective, according to... Israel's pseudo informations.
It feels like Israel wanted to start a war with Iran, and the US gave them the justification they needed. It's a little too late however, now Assad pretty much ended the civil war in Syria, they'll be able to focus on everything Israel will attempt there. And the US won't do much because of Russia.
I really can't see how Isreal or the baboon thought they could win anything with this.

By not winning, they still win...

12 Reasons America Doesn’t Win Its Wars

Too many parties now benefit from perpetual warmaking for the U.S. to ever conclude its military conflicts.

By Jon Basil Utley
June 13, 2015

America doesn’t “win” its wars, because winning a war is secondary to other goals in our war making. Winning or losing has little immediate consequence for the United States, because the wars we start, Wars of Choice, are not of vital national interest; losing doesn’t mean getting invaded or our cities being destroyed. The following are some of the interests Washington has in not winning, reasons for our unending wars.
...

Full text at:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/12-reasons-america-doesnt-win-its-wars/

Yes, of course. I still believe in that case, with Israel's involvment, the politial cost will overcome all other benefits. of course arms dealers don't care about that, and the baboon is too stupid to understand he's the one that will pay this price.

Aye.

Turkey is already moving in on northern Syria.

Turkey's air force launched late Monday an offensive against Kurdish targets in north-east Syria, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported, following US's earlier announcement not to intervene if such a scenario was to occur.

This report comes in light of a tumultuous day in Washington after US President Donald Trump ordered a withdrawal of American forces from Syria, acquiescing to his Turkish counterpart's request on Sunday.

...

Turkish jets strike Kurdish targets in northern Syria: reports

great ; now the Kurds are going to abandon the prison camps and leave all the ISIS fighters inside free to wreak havoc again ... all that because erdogan is an arsehole as nasty as frump.