Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
Arabs cannot tolerate a free community or freedom of speech or a democracy. Saddam was the perfect leader Iraq deserve, yeas he was having territory ambition but he was not a religious lunatics, never killed anyone based on religion. Removal of Saddam was the biggest blunder ever commited by US when comes to regime change, it pave the way for ISIS, i dont need to tell anything about what ISIS had done to yezidiz, & Europeans.
UN should not have impose a economic embargo on them after the first war. They didn't have the technical expertise in developing a defense industry, or nobody would have given a meaningful military assistance to them to go back pre 91 military strength. Because of the economic sanction, common Iraqis suffered a lot, and world economy because of non availability of iraqi oil.
No but he did gas 200,000 Kurds. Iranian seem to be giving a lot of free speech right now. ISIS would have happened anyway, it's like a poorly organised less capable version of Al-Quaeda. ISIS is gone now and Iraq has something approaching a democracy.
That's why they should have removed him. It would have been much easier if they'd done it in 1991 pre-internet and when the world wanted him gone. The bad optics of doing it in 2003, combined with the internet and stronger rival powers are what caused the chaos.
There's no such thing. People change their behaviour only on an evolutionary scale, which takes thousands of years.
Don't remember. It was about foreign policy between other nations. Diplomats even abuse each other behind closed doors.
Any war is entirely up to India and Pakistan. US won't fight India directly. That's why patsies exist.
Yes. But it's about bringing more balance into the system. That balance currently does not exist, which is why a multipolar world is necessary.
It's not paranoia. It constantly keeps happening all the time, since the beginning of civilisation.
Everybody in our strategic policy circle agrees that India is next after China. There's no doubt about it.
You are kidding right? We've been in the EU for nearly 30 years and even before that we had people from ex-territories of British Empire. We have people who speak all manner of different languages. But if you're dealing with a public servant you expect to hear only English. It's standard for the civil service of any country to speak the language of that country. Even in Ukraine it was until Yanukovych tried changing it in 2012 with a bill that was unconstitutional.
A dictatorship is a breach of sovereignty in the first place. They weren't elected, they rose to power by force, so what's the difference between them and any other invader? Both are stealing the people's right to govern themselves.
Last edited:
Putin called an additional 300,000 men into the military a month ago, and it's taking a toll on the economy
Russia's energy sector is still holding up despite the sanctions, but the mobilization of men is hitting its economy, per the country's central bank.
www.businessinsider.com
Lol, so your go-to argument is non-British citizens... Yeah, dude, you've lost this argument.
It's all about the percentage of CITIZENS who speak a different language. In India, it's 60 million people to get official status. That's roughly 5% of the population. In Ukraine, Russian speakers are 22% official and 36% as the language of choice at home. It way more than qualifies as an official language for the Ukrainians.
Nope. Sovereignty has nothing to do with the form of govt, or its internal politics. It's all about how much leverage you have over others outside your borders.
The US being a big economy uses it heft to get what it wants, making it the only sovereign country in the world today. It's the Godfather in world politics.
Brexit happened because the British people believed they had lost their sovereignty, 'cause Brussels was making all the decisions, not London. What's that go to do with forms of govt?
You trippin', as usual.
The percentage of UK citizens who spoke a different, or had parents/grandparents who did, would be similarly high. They are all British citizens, but when they come here they're expected to learn English. How long have those Russians had to learn Ukrainian? I'd wager a lot more time. And it's not like it's that different to Russian anyway. It's like learning American English vs British English FFS. It's a null point. I can't believe so many people are trying to push this as a reason for mass muder.
Nope, that's just your definition of it I'm afraid. When you say 'you', who do you mean exactly? In the case of Russia it's basically one guy, as per Saddam's Iraq, or Kim Jong-Un's DPRK. So one guy is sovereign, and you think that equates to national sovereignty? Yeah, okay.
Oh sure, just because you say so.
They hadn't lost their sovereignty because they were able to leave. If only people in Russia and the DPRK found it so easy to leave. The EU was just a trade deal that mutated badly while nobody was looking.
Nope, one guy's sovereignty does not equal national sovereignty. His people have zero ability to influence anything. What does it matter to them whether an invader comes in and calls the shots instead? Especially if the invader actually sets up a democracy and allows them to choose.
Last edited:
Well, Turkey is Turkey. The rest of NATO's disapproval of some of their actions is noted, although Kurds have acted as terrorists in the past too. They are Turkey's individual actions, not NATO's actions. You can copy and paste that answer for Israel too. I'm not going to get into local disputes that frankly neither of us understand the full ins and outs of. But when you gas 200k people in one attack, there's no justification for that. That's just indiscriminate mass murder.
Last edited: