Germany does own poll, 75% crimeans wanted Russia

originally posted by: sosobad
Then why do you get so bent out of shape about the people of Crimea wanting to be part of Russia? Would you prefer that they would also be getting killed by the Kiev government?

So you have no problem with Chechnya and Dagestan getting their vote?

originally posted by: Aaamok88
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You sound very angry, what's the matter

Things not going your way

I am not angry at all, and things are going exactly my way. You refuse to answer basic simple questions because you know your position is wrong and indefensible. You have basically admitted I am right and you are wrong.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: sosobad

I answered, why can't you?

Will you stop being impatient, you are not the most important thing in my life.

If they want help and the forces helping are doing ethnic reasons and more importantly are doing in their own regions, I would accept it.

a reply to: sosobad

So your position is that any group anywhere in the world should simply be given a vote on whether the land they currently reside on should be stolen from the country it belongs to and given to someone else?

We disagree. It's nice of you to admit that Russia is completely in the wrong preventing Dagestan and Chechnya from having their vote.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: sosobad

So your position is that any group anywhere in the world should simply be given a vote on whether the land they currently reside on should be stolen from the country it belongs to and given to someone else?

We disagree. It's nice of you to admit that Russia is completely in the wrong preventing Dagestan and Chechnya from having their vote.

When did I ever say they are right about it? See this is where you lose me, are you Crimean? Your stance suggests that you would actually prefer they get slaughtered along with the rest of eastern Ukraine. Is that what you want? Your logic is one of subjugation and that people are better off dead that choosing their own path. Quite frankly that is sick.

BTW Way to twist my words, where did I say any group in the world can go anywhere they want? Lying to justify your position. Sad

originally posted by: sosobad
When did I ever say they are right about it? See this is where you lose me, are you Crimean? Your stance suggests that you would actually prefer they get slaughtered along with the rest of eastern Ukraine. Is that what you want? Your logic is one of subjugation and that people are better off dead that choosing their own path. Quite frankly that is sick.

Why would they be slaughtered? Can you show me any aggression towards Crimea? Crimea belonged to Ukraine, there would be no deaths unless they rebelled.

If they no longer wished to live in the Ukraine they should sell their possessions and emigrate back to Russia if they wish to live in Russia.

If Crimeans have a legal diplomatic way to leave the Ukraine I am in favor of them choosing that path as well. An illegal invasion and occupation by Russia is not something I support. Your talk of Crimeans being killed is a logical fallacy, it never happened.

Although when Russia owned Crimea it DID happen, against the Tatars.

ETA: You edited yours after I quoted you. So not anyone can do it, just Crimea? Why can Crimea do it and not others?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ETA: You edited yours after I quoted you. So not anyone can do it, just Crimea? Why can Crimea do it and not others?

I gave a very specific answer and you twisted my post. Where did I say any group can go anywhere in the world? Where did I just say Crimea only? Stop lying

originally posted by: sosobad
Are you really going to say that Crimea would have been all sunshine and rainbows if they didn't vote to join Russia? You've just lost what little credibility you had. You are posting this faux outrage for the Tartar's but yet tell the people of eastern Ukraine to sell their possessions and move. Come on everyone all together now.... Hypocrite.

The world is not sunshine and rainbows. We are not talking sunshine and rainbows. We are talking about slaughtering for no reason. That is something you created from fantasy.

The Tatars did not sell their possessions and move. Their possessions were stolen and they were forcibly removed. Either way it has nothing to do with that comment, if they wish to live in Russia they are welcome to move there.

You are calling for people to be killed, the people from eastern Ukraine want nothing to do with the puppets in Kiev and either do the people of Crimea but some person from the states on a forum knows what's best for them and then cries about Chechnya and Dagestan and the twists my words to trying and justify their position. You working in mental health should know that wanting death no apathy and lying is typical psychotic behaviour is it not.

Then they can move. I don't even have to respond to them being puppets because it's meaningless. The old regime was a puppet regime, Western Ukraine did not secede, they voted. Eastern Ukraine can vote as well. If they don't have the votes, they can leave the country if they don't like it. What they can't do is start an armed rebellion, that is the only reason there is any deaths. I lied about and twisted nothing, my question stands. You said you never claimed everyone can do this .. so why does Crimea get the vote and not others?

Since you think the vote idea is the way to go, when will you start the petition to let all the parts of Russia that want to leave get their vote to leave?

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ETA: You edited yours after I quoted you. So not anyone can do it, just Crimea? Why can Crimea do it and not others?

I gave a very specific answer and you twisted my post. Where did I say any group can go anywhere in the world? Where did I just say Crimea only? Stop lying

If it's not limited to just Crimea why is it not an option for all people everywhere? There is no lie, just your being confusing.

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Occam's it is far too early in the morning to be putting up with your #. If you are not going to acknowledge that you are indeed twisting my words then lying the the rest of your bs is moot and I will not respond futher I said

"
If they want help and the forces helping are doing ethnic reasons and more importantly are doing in their own regions, I would accept it."

So what you suggest is that people should not be given a vote unless an outside force aids them? That if Crimea wanted to be free they should NOT have been given a vote unless someone of their ethnicity and in their region came to their aid? If there is no one available to aid you then you are SOL and should get no vote to be free?

Your response

"
So your position is that any group anywhere in the world should simply be given a vote on whether the land they currently reside on should be stolen from the country it belongs to and given to someone else?"
And
"So not anyone can do it, just Crimea? Why can Crimea do it and not others?"

Yes, because I never imagined you or anyone else would be arguing that a people getting a vote is JUSTIFIED and either right or wrong based upon military support of foreign countries. Crazy me over here is thinking that it's either right or wrong on it's own merit, and in the real world military support makes a thing happen or not happen, but it never makes it right or wrong. We do have very different ideas.

Where did I say just Crimea? Where did I say any group?

Don't expect me to answer your avalanche of bs until you answer why you are lying, you think you are that important that people should answer you straight away without addressing your own lies?

As I said, there is no lie, only your confusing answer basing whether a thing is right or wrong upon military support for the idea. That is mindboggling to me, and whether Russia backed Crimea or not has no bearing to me on whether Crimea leaving is right or wrong. The idea a people need a foreign government's military blessing for a vote to be the "right thing" to do is just ... wow.

a reply to: Aaamok88

I don't really expect anyone to come and apologize for anything,I just thought I'd bring the info for all of us so that we could keep abreast of the things that are going on,and know how they got there. Those that are refusing to see the truth,will keep on seeing a lie.There is nothing to be done about it. I just want the truth.

(I should mention that I will be diverging from the main point of your thread, but I believe this related information is necessary given the revelations in the news today of Russian military buildup.) Does anyone really think that Putin and the Russian government care about the people in Crimea? Of course they don't. This same reason has been cited for past annexations in Europe by multiple nations in the past. The takeover of the area was for one main reason, which can be broken down into the following: strategic, political, and economic advantages that come with Crimea. Obviously nations will welcome the expansion of sovereign territory, and the lower the cost, whether the cost is financial or paid in blood, the better the deal is for the expanding nation. The parallels between the annexation of Crimea and the annexations performed prior to the start of WWII are interesting in my opinion, and I noticed others were thinking along these lines as well. However, I think the main difference between Russia's actions and those of Nazi Germany are ideological. Russia's main reason for their actions in Crimea hinge on the strategic implications that would have come from the loss of their Black Sea naval base. I would be willing to bet that Russia has had a plan in place since they first leased the area from their neighbor. Meaning that if for some reason it appeared they would lose that base, military action would be taken. I'm sure various factors went into the timing of the small offensive. So Russia's main goal was the improvement of their strategic situation, and the benefits that come from owning the area outright.

But while the benefits to the military sphere are great, this does not necessarily mean Russia's timing is a foreshadowing of their future intentions. The news today has been full of interviews with people who are convinced Russia is going to attack America. This is utterly ridiculous. The threat of nuclear war is virtually non-existent at present. The threat of total war may be slightly more probable, but is still highly unlikely, mainly because total war precedes nuclear war in the most plausible scenarios. It would be a mistake to think that Russia would launch a massive nuclear bombardment at the US, because this would sign their own death warrant. It is just not feasible. The current military thinking is that the only feasible way to launch a first-strike with one's nuclear arsenal is if the attacking side could guarantee the destruction of the enemy's nuclear arsenal on the ground, and this is not possible for nations with as large of a nuclear arsenal as Russia or the US.

I just get so annoyed because many people believe that Russia's actions in Crimea are indicative of what is to come, when war is still a long way off, IF it comes at all. There is nothing that has occurred at present that says war is on the horizon. Today the talk has been of Russia's military buildup, and this is not something that is unfounded. Military buildup, while necessary for a large conflict, does not imply a large conflict. Meaning that there are other reasons for building up one's military forces, the main one being two-fold. Not only does possessing a large military force make any potential enemies think twice before taking military action against your nation or its interests, but a large military also gives the possessing nation much more bargaining power. Sometimes the threat of invasion is enough to gain certain concessions, and I have a feeling this is what Putin is after. He simply does not want to appear bullied by the US and her allies. However, he should know the US well enough to determine that we do not really scare in the face of threats, no matter how veiled they are. But he knows that the US military is in no position to really do anything to Russia. This is another way we know that Russia's intentions are not too nefarious. He can build up the Russian military without really bringing more danger to Russia. The benefits outweigh the risks, and the military forces might be useful in the future as well.

They could have easily gone into Ukraine and conquered the whole territory if they were so inclined, and the time to strike has passed if they wanted to maintain the element of surprise, which almost always confers a certain military advantage. You can negate certain enemy advantages by achieving the element of surprise, although Russia is the force with the advantages. Even in a US-Russian war Russia would have many advantages, the most pressing being that they are fighting on their home soil. Thus they have the interior strategic lines, making the shifting of their forces much easier than their enemies, and meaning that they have all of their military resources in a place where they can essentially be concentrated. Given all of these advantages, if Russia had military intentions in Ukraine then they would have gone for the throat by now. There is virtually no chance of a US military response on any meaningful level. Thus Russia could get away with it. What military recourse do other nations possess, even an alliance of nations? The nuclear option is off the table. An air campaign would definitely make up part of any US military response, and against a conventional enemy would have a greater chance of success than against terrorist groups like ISIL, but the major difference is that Russia possesses modern air defense systems, as well as aircraft of their own, with many skilled aviators. Without ground troops an air campaign would be useless against Russia. Then there is the chance of US strategic leaders making incorrect decisions about targets, or placing certain target restrictions that would limit the potential effectiveness of such a campaign, akin to what happened in Vietnam. But the use of ground troops would be more expensive than most people realize, and would cost much in terms of human life as well. If the US could run Russia out of Ukraine in a hypothetical scenario, the war would likely end there, because total war is not possible in the nuclear age in my opinion. Limited wars will rule the day from here on out, at least between nuclear nations. I've explained the reasons for this in other posts. But the US would be hard-pressed to achieve such a lofty objective. It could be done, but would cost too much. Thus the only way for the US and her allies to avoid such high costs in that scenario is to simply avoid war with another superpower. That is how Russia could get away with invading Ukraine. They know this. So why haven't they done it yet? And while the US can militarily walk all over small nations, the last US experience in a similar conflict was WWII. Korea was not similar, and neither was Vietnam or the Persian Gulf War. The latter was the last US experience in mass movements of troops and other actions that would be necessary against Russia. But the enemy in that circumstance, while formidable on paper, was little more than a token resistance force, aside from some crack Republican Guard divisions, who could not hope to really do anything against such advanced equipment. US tanks could both see and shoot first, and the main power of the Iraqi army came from the RG armored units. I'm just saying that many have forgotten the true cost of such a large conflict like would be seen with Russia. And if the US leaders forget this, and get us involved with Russia, they will soon be reminded. The cost of modern, conventional war is high.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You do not seem to realize that other interests were pushing to steal Crimea and Ukraine, and this forced the action.

You are so blatantly able to be bribed by a methodology that frankly reminds me of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and a whole lot of hate all boiled into one.

The question you should ask yourself, why do you care so much about what Russia does, and why you do not see that something on this Earth creates conflicts and stews it as you are stewed now.

We need a whole lot less of mindwashed servants running around barking at cherry-picked things and focus on issues at home, I.E. who is robbing the USA blind.

Face it, you cannot and will not ever get involved in making a better planet, we can see it with the "OMG LOOK WHAT THEY DID OVER THERE, and not ever caring to see what is going on at home.

By the WAY, the USA and friends interfere in a way that is so broad and long-lasting that those as yourselves consider the best option out there.

Terrorists are terrorists, riggers of the games, and they have many blinded.

Get a life and admit the fact that people may want to better themselves, and that DOES NOT EQUATE to listening to those from the so-called WEST.

Just a reminder......

Bickering is not discussing the topic, Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Let's get this simple back again.
People in Crimea WANTED to have that chance to vote to join Russia, the land was GIVEN to Ukraine FROM Russia to begin with. That's the main reason for so many Russians to live there. They were given the chance to vote and they did. Now those votes have been clarified as legit. Job done right. The reason to give the chance to vote was BECAUSE the US orchestrated revolution in Kiev. This is the MAIN point here. US is the meddler here, not the Russians. And we talk about Crimea now, not Donetsk or Luhansk, wich have a very different situation. Russia did NOT invade Crimea in any way but US changed the goverment in Ukraine to fit it's own needs and that has been almost fool-prooven now. Only idiots think otherwise (IMHO!). US should be sanctioned heavily because of that. Only US and it's puny pussies in Kiev opposed this, and ofcourse brainwashed morons around the world.
I'm not even starting to talk about Donetsk and Luhansk situations because of the differences to this matter, there is blood on both sides hands BUT US should keep their hands off this one as they CAN'T make it better in any way and it's really not their business. They are NOT world police. Just a f*****g bunch of zionist in their goverment and bank-divisions driving their money-powered-slavery around the world and trying to bring everyone on their knees. And NATO should break down and be committed illegal of their offensive strategies out in the world, it's not defence they're doing anymore as it should be.
This world has gone too deep in the # to turn around anymore. I'm already fully lost faith in our goverment too and I'm already looking for NATO-US-Russia-free zone to inhabit my family there as soon as the warhorns start to boom close to here in Finland. I don't even give a # anymore and that's why I'm bailing out. Just hoping my kids get to graduate from the primary school before that.
I fail to understand why anyone would support this kind of an approach from the WEST for starters. Why wasn't there sanctions and bombs in the white house then? F*****g hippocrates give sanctions to Russia when they do exactly the same as they did. This post is mainly towards certain people here for being idiot propagandist clowns without any sense. Not going back to this thread so it's useless to answer to this post. Just enjoy it if you do. There is not a thing in Ukraine or areas that surround it that would've justified US to meddle in their business in any way so why the # they are there? Go away to die on your own lands and do something good for a change in the meantime.
Bit of crazy text from my crazy head but try to bear with it if you can.

The people of Crimea are perfectly happy accepting Russian rubles. Rubles from Russian tourists, rubles from Russian sailors, rubles from Russian soldiers. Since they have never lived in a democratic society, they do not care whether the laws are made in Kyiv or in Moscow. All they know is they like Russian rubles. So, if you ask a Crimean if they want to be part of Russia, what do you think they are going to say? "Sure, why not?"