Russia bombing ISIS in Syria

Discussion in 'World News & Debates' started by TheImperial, Oct 1, 2015.

  1. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

  2. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator

    >Following the outbreak of the protests

    I see nothing suspicious there. In my experience, the causality principle would dictate that if sabotaging happened to cause protests, then the protests would tend to break after foreign ministers made any move.

    Also, the move was largely transparent and it was clearly a call to order, something understandable if you are a foreign minister in a country in which violence could break out at any moment.

    You could possibly say that the sabotaging came after the protests started but this raises two questions:

    1) Then what caused the initial actual protests to arise before any clear involvement?
    2) What evidence is there to support this claim given the non-shady nature of foreign minister contribution to the crisis?

    Also, regarding the visits of various officials, it is understandable from a strategic point of view (especially USA). If a country that has been working more and more towards gaining more affiliations with you is in the midst of a crisis which you can take advantage of and support a pro-you government, then you will do it.
    That doesn't give any evidence as to how those countries in particular caused the protests, let alone amplified them to their satisfaction.

    It's typical political opportunism and rather basic as well. Same as Putin bombing ISIS.
     
  3. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

    So do you actually believe that thousands of people can just live out there on a street for weeks without shitload of money for food, toilets, coordinators and other stuff? Where do you think that money came from?

    Call to order? More like a check up if everything is going according to their plan. I can kinda understand why would eu officials pay a visit but what possible business could have US in a place literally on the other side of the planet? If you look from logistic point of view how it all was organised there is no doubt who's involved.

    ISIS is a world-wide recognized terrorist organisation but that doesn't stop some people from telling us we are again "doing a bad thing". You can't possibly compare a coup and bombing to hell shitheads from ISIS.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2016
  4. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator

    Statistically, anywhere.

    Protest money can come from any source that is willing to support it. Protesters themselves seem to be rather enticing candidates, don't they?

    Even if we accept that funding was solely upon foreign intervention, then my question still remains: How did the protests start before any clear foreign intervention? Maybe (just maybe), people were actually in discontent in a way that the US could exploit.

    Well, is there any evidence for this? That's the question here.

    According to what we know for sure for the events and facts, there is no real shady nature here. USA exploited this situation to support a pro-US government, something Ukraine had before which pushed for being closer to joining NATO or the EU.
    Any conspiracy regarding actually starting the protests is not supported by any real definitive evidence, which I'm arguing for here.

    After all, if it was such a well-planned, pre-organised policy, how come those US official visits were made so public and transparent? Why didn't they try to hide it or (as it is common in US shitty policies) just rely on CIA and other agents of their for the job?

    As I've said, typical political opportunism. No one denies the US were rubbing their hands together in satisfaction. The situation was practically served on a golden plate for them. Blaming them for the events since the beginning though, that goes beyond facts.

    And another thing, US intervention in Syria and Libya was very badly executed. It was so obvious how they attempted it and how they executed it and it ended up like shit, not even achieving their optimal goals. How come the "Ukraine plan" was so well-executed and secretive? Did they fire the previous guys and hired the pros?


    It's not a bad thing, it's sheer political ambitions and preserving diplomacy. Obviously bombing ISIS is good whoever does it, which makes the situation easier to swallow.

    Also, what happened in Ukraine doesn't qualify as a coup, really.
     
  5. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

    Well the protest itself originally was very small and nobody expected it to grow but due to spineless president and his undeceive actions things got out of hand. Maybe it was planned on air as the shit went on maybe not, we don't know. What we know is that West backed up unconstitutional coup in a sovereign state when there would be election literally in a half of the year. You can't possible expect the same freedom of action near the Russian boarder from US as in Libya, if you are not looking to start an atomic annihilation of the planet so it was made pubic.

    ---------- Post added at 12:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 AM ----------

    Coup - A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover.

    Democratically elected president was overthrown by force by his political opponents. Sounds like a coup to me.

    ---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 AM ----------

    http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2015-05/ukraine-usa-maidan-finance
     
  6. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator

    Protests grow because of the mob effect, it's almost always the case with protests, especially if the initial protests face opposition that gives the idea of a struggle. Happened in the past even against the US or pro-US policies in other nations.

    They didn't back up a coup, because (as I've said) the term "coup" doesn't apply here. The most common definition of coup is "the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus". Which basically means that a coup needs a specific group of officials or conspirators in power that orchestrate the fall of the withstanding government.
    In Ukraine, it was a result of popular protests which makes the situation qualify as a "revolution" that forced the withstanding government to resign.

    For example, a true recent coup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état
    Military officials planning to remove the current government.

    Did US support the protests, however? Yes. That is abundantly clear (even though we don't know if they ever did anything to amplify them).

    By the way, my argument regarding the actions in Libya is regards to rate of success and transparency, not amount of actions. Considering how the US handled Libya or Syria, they don't sound like they are a very subtle bunch.

    And in response to the quote from the article, that is speculative. She "could possibly" have influence over the new government. The funding or overall support of the protests is not really that big of a question. We've already gone through this: US exploited the situation to the fullest. That doesn't mean they initiated anything or actively planned this.
     
  7. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    Don't know how is it any different from Russia actively supporting separatists in Ukraine to be honest, nor annexing a territory that belonged to another country. Also that "referendum" was kind of questionable when the voting places were guarded by russian armed soldiers.
     
  8. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

    Believe it or not all the bullshit aside we don't really want another region that is sucking money from our budget on your hands. Gov is kinda forced to engage because people expect them to and because if they don't - they intentionally let US near our boarder. It's kinda no-choice situation.

    So soldiers was there to provide security, not like they forced you to vote for something.

    Look at it from that point: in Ukraine people are dying, in Crimea they don't.
     
  9. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    I am sorry but I am having a hard time believing that. Even if they didn't intervene you'd think twice before voting against Russia when the place was filled russian spec ops.

    What are you trying to say here? Mind elaborating on this one maybe?
     
  10. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

    What's there to elaborate on? If Crimea didn't join Russia it was very likely ukr "anti-terrorist operation" would extend to it.
     
  11. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    Pure speculation but even if it would happen it doesn't give Russia the right to meddle into other countries' internal affairs and even more so it doesn't give them the right to fucking roll in with their millitary.
     
  12. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

    So it's alright when US do it's but wrong for us?
     
  13. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    I never implied that, in fact in my last post I criticized Nato and the US for supporting Albanian separatists and acknowledging the independence of Kosovo even though it was completely against every law, same goes for their intervention in Lybia. Under Gadafi it was the richest country in Africa, now it is literally a hell on earth. However this doesn't justify Russia's actions and her imperialistic territorial claims.
     
  14. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

    How about you research how it's in Crimea now and before instead and get back before comparing it to Libya and Kosovo?
     
  15. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    Well, you are the one arguing for Russian Crimea not me, so you should provide the source imo...
     
  16. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

  17. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    I think you missed what I wanted to say. I am fully aware that Kosovo and Lybia are awful places to live, that is what I said in my original posts. I asked for sources which prove that Crimea is a better, improved and more prosperous region under Russia than before when it was a part of Ukraine, which is hard for me to believe because Crimea is not connected by land with Russia.
     
  18. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Well-Known Member

    Die? NATO was going to start bombing Russian civilians from that military base? Even if that is the case, Ukraine itself decided for this agreement, and I do not see how it is Russia's business. By this logic, I should go around and punching my neighbors in the face because there is always a possibility that they will punch me. :cat:

    Unfortunately, Ukraine is just in a bad position. They had to accept the military base deal as a part of integration into Eurozone, and the reason why they decided on this was because they are sick and tired of Russia. Did you know that in 1940 West Ukraine opened their borders to Hitler because they hoped he was going to liberate them from the Soviet regime? Yes, they were naive, but they were so fucking done with Russia they would rather deal with Hitler. It didn't end well for them, unfortunately, but as I said: they are just in a bad geopolitical position. On the one hand, they want to break away from the Russian yoke, on the hand, they have to accept Western policies because the West is playing a political game against Russia (and so does Russia against the West). They basically have to take sides in this fucked political games, so I can only empathize with the people of Ukraine.
     
  19. TheImperial

    TheImperial Well-Known Member

    Thanks for letting the public here know the views of modern day neonazi Ukrainian movement and it's spin on a history.
    Also nice pink glasses about foreign policy

    ---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 AM ----------

    Tomallow
     
  20. Ostarion

    Ostarion Well-Known Member

    Do or die is just a saying, you were not supposed to take that literally. Let me rephrase that into ''if he hadn't acted, Putin would be in a considerably worse geopolitical situation''. And what do you think a military base is used for? There is only one purpose for such a complex. And I didn't even suggest USA would just randomly start massacring civilians, or bombing cities. But they certainly would have a nice position for it if they ever were in need of such an option. This the real world. You don't just let someone build a base right in front of your doorstep and think he will never use it. You just reveal how naive and sheltered your thinking is. Do you think USA would build something for no benefit? Something they would just never use?

    And yes, I know invading and annexing Crimea is horrible, and Russia had no right to do so. I am not trying to say they did something ''good'' or ''right''. I am merely trying to say their actions weren't unprovoked, and had a reason behind them. If Russia would just ignore it, their geopolitical position would worsen. It's a power struggle between two superpowers. What Ukraine wants is irelevant to both of them.