..but I just want to note that watching John McCain blather on about freedom (http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12) while standing next to Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the Nazi-esque Svoboda Party (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/ukraines-fascists-hiding-plain-sight-9481?page=1) is too hilarious not to comment on.
Interestingly, I was going to ask about this, as it popped up on NPR this morning. Not the McCain part, which is awesome and so apt, but more about the economic extortion Russia seems to be exerting.
It's all bullshit and grandstanding. Every major politician in Ukraine is a crook on the take, and they will tell you whatever you want to hear if they think they can profit from it. Whether they're pro-Europe or pro-Russian can vary from hour to hour. The admittedly rather lovely Yulia Tymoshenko, for example, currently the darling of Western liberal anti-Russians was not so long ago negotiating sweetheart deals for Russian gas pipelines through Ukraine.
The EU made a bad deal, and the Russians were willing to impose more costs of noncompliance than the EU was willing to overcome with promises of aid and assistance. The EU should have made a better deal, and American Neocons should stop crying every time Russia does something they don't like. They're adults and, quite frankly, it's undignified.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2013, 02:05:17 PM
The admittedly rather lovely Yulia Tymoshenko,
Just googled her. Hotness.
She is a bad guy, though, I can tell.
She's not the worst person in Ukraine, but she's hardly an angel, it's true.
Ukranian politics has all the sophistication, displays of fake drama and manufactured plotlines of a low-budget soap opera, with about the same number of important players. Tymoshenko made her fortune in the gas business in the early 90s, which was hardly the most legit of businesses, either in Ukraine or Russia (where she imported from). She was also the annointed leader of the "Orange Revolution", which was planned by the same Neocons (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa) who cannot stop blubbering now.
She's probably the smartest there too, as she's managing to play every side - the EU's liberals, US neocons, and Russian business interests - against Yanukovych.
So Vladimir Klitschko....just angling to be a name-brand figurehead or does he actually have some legitimate political juice?
I'm guessing you mean Vitali? He's got some actual political support, but he's never scored too well nationally. His base tends to be the educated, liberal middle classes...and there are a lot of contenders in that area. including the far more recognisable Yulia. He also appears to have some American backing, no doubt due to his support for Ukranian-NATO engagement.
He could be sincere, but he's never really had enough power for that to be apparent or not.
I did mean Vitali. And it's being reported that he has retired from boxing to focus on his political ambitions, which include becoming President of Ukraine.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2013, 02:05:17 PM
It's all bullshit and grandstanding. Every major politician in Ukraine is a crook on the take, and they will tell you whatever you want to hear if they think they can profit from it. Whether they're pro-Europe or pro-Russian can vary from hour to hour. The admittedly rather lovely Yulia Tymoshenko, for example, currently the darling of Western liberal anti-Russians was not so long ago negotiating sweetheart deals for Russian gas pipelines through Ukraine.
The EU made a bad deal, and the Russians were willing to impose more costs of noncompliance than the EU was willing to overcome with promises of aid and assistance. The EU should have made a better deal, and American Neocons should stop crying every time Russia does something they don't like. They're adults and, quite frankly, it's undignified.
Oh, I can see the similarities between a pipeline, an economic venture, and an invasion and occupation. Hm. If America provides Mexico with some resource, we MUST be ok with them invading us. Cause, we did business in the past, you know. So yeah.
Shame you can't type comprehensibly.
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 02:41:46 PM
Shame you can't type comprehensibly.
Sucks that you continuously resort to ad hominem.
I can choose to do otherwise.
However, you will always be an idiot with verbal diarrhea.
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:44:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 02:41:46 PM
Shame you can't type comprehensibly.
Sucks that you continuously resort to ad hominem.
Well you did boil down a former Soviet union, with many different power plays going on to a one liner.
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:44:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 02:41:46 PM
Shame you can't type comprehensibly.
Sucks that you continuously resort to ad hominem.
Well you did boil down a former Soviet union, with many different power plays going on to a one liner.
Perhaps I could have made it a paragraph instead of a sentence, like my good friend did, then. Maybe that would have appeased your need for more text.
My purpose was not to "boil down a former Soviet Union", but to show an irrationality in Cain's thought process.
Negotiation for a pipe to run across my borders does not equal acceptance of an invasion and occupation. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.
And where did I claim it was?
Go on, show me. I'll be impressed, I promise.
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:50:49 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:44:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 02:41:46 PM
Shame you can't type comprehensibly.
Sucks that you continuously resort to ad hominem.
Well you did boil down a former Soviet union, with many different power plays going on to a one liner.
Perhaps I could have made it a paragraph instead of a sentence, like my good friend did, then. Maybe that would have appeased your need for more text.
My purpose was not to "boil down a former Soviet Union", but to show an irrationality in Cain's thought process.
Negotiation for a pipe to run across my borders does not equal acceptance of an invasion and occupation. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.
Well. You sure showed me.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2013, 02:05:17 PM
It's all bullshit and grandstanding. Every major politician in Ukraine is a crook on the take, and they will tell you whatever you want to hear if they think they can profit from it. Whether they're pro-Europe or pro-Russian can vary from hour to hour. The admittedly rather lovely Yulia Tymoshenko, for example, currently the darling of Western liberal anti-Russians was not so long ago negotiating sweetheart deals for Russian gas pipelines through Ukraine.
The EU made a bad deal, and the Russians were willing to impose more costs of noncompliance than the EU was willing to overcome with promises of aid and assistance. The EU should have made a better deal, and American Neocons should stop crying every time Russia does something they don't like. They're adults and, quite frankly, it's undignified.
And where does that indicate anything about invasion? that WAS posted in December before any of this shit kicked off.
OK. And what does that have to do with invasion and occupation?
The unrest began in November. We can all sit here and claim CIA assets were the only ones fomenting it, but if you don't think KGB was in there you're close-minded.
Russia's been in power play over Ukraine for months. Don't even kid yourselves. Just because Tymoshenko was approving of a pipeline, and then decided she didn't like what Russia was playing at, you're insinuating she's a hypocrite.
Never mind all the nuances of politics in Eastern Europe.
So....is that you saying you can't back up your assertion?
That's me saying you're wrong to imply that someone who has done business with someone in the past, still wishes to do business with someone who has overtly aggressive intent towards them, and thus proves it with an invasion and occupation. In other words, the woman was right in her feelings, and the Russian invasion proved her right.
So....you have no proof to back up your claim that I said, that negotiations for a pipeline equalled acceptance of an invasion?
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 03:12:03 PM
So....you have no proof to back up your claim that I said, that negotiations for a pipeline equalled acceptance of an invasion?
Come now, an invasion, preparations for an invasion by spec ops forces, wanna split hairs here, really?
She didn't approve of them moving spec ops in and fomenting unrest for a future invasion.
So you were claiming she was a hypocrite for wanting a pipeline, and then deciding she didn't like Russia.
Well, now we're ~3 months out from your comment, and not only were her negative feelings toward Russia correct but they have invaded and occupied a decent swath of her country. She was right, you were wrong, get over it dude.
Still waiting for that quote, sparky.
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 03:20:22 PM
Still waiting for that quote, sparky.
Here you go, buddy.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."
Get over it. You insinuated that she was a hypocrite, but she was right. The fact that your post was ~3 months ago only proves my point further. Russia had not invaded, so to you, her fears were unjustified, and she was just some anti-russian cunt. Some asshole who was willing to profit off of Russia but now she's profiting on being the "darling of the western-liberal anti-russians", as you said. But now Russia has invaded Ukraine, so her fears were proved right, and your rhetoric reactionist bullshit was proved wrong. She wasn't just some cunt who disliked Russia to be the "darling". She actually smelled something funny coming. And come it did - all over poor Crimea's face.
But of course, that doesn't change your desire to argue over semantics and wordplay. You were wrong and she was right and the specific words used do not invalidate your argument any less.
So....no quote then?
Hold on now, Cain... You're apparently talking to the smartest guy on the internet.
So show some respect.
I know, right?
He even knows what I say, even when I haven't said it. That takes some serious smarts.
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 03:17:16 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 03:12:03 PM
So....you have no proof to back up your claim that I said, that negotiations for a pipeline equalled acceptance of an invasion?
Come now, an invasion, preparations for an invasion by spec ops forces, wanna split hairs here, really?
She didn't approve of them moving spec ops in and fomenting unrest for a future invasion.
So you were claiming she was a hypocrite for wanting a pipeline, and then deciding she didn't like Russia.
Well, now we're ~3 months out from your comment, and not only were her negative feelings toward Russia correct but they have invaded and occupied a decent swath of her country. She was right, you were wrong, get over it dude.
No troops were deployed until the government was overthrown by the new group that russia does not recognise and most of those troops were withdrawn today.
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 03:54:03 PM
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 03:17:16 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 03:12:03 PM
So....you have no proof to back up your claim that I said, that negotiations for a pipeline equalled acceptance of an invasion?
Come now, an invasion, preparations for an invasion by spec ops forces, wanna split hairs here, really?
She didn't approve of them moving spec ops in and fomenting unrest for a future invasion.
So you were claiming she was a hypocrite for wanting a pipeline, and then deciding she didn't like Russia.
Well, now we're ~3 months out from your comment, and not only were her negative feelings toward Russia correct but they have invaded and occupied a decent swath of her country. She was right, you were wrong, get over it dude.
No troops were deployed until the government was overthrown by the new group that russia does not recognise and most of those troops were withdrawn today.
Oooh so if the Mexican government is overthrown by a group that the US does not recognize we should invade. Right!
If you had a military base in mexico and the mexican government is overthrown, you increase the amount of troops deployed there until you can can discuss your standing with the provisional government to find out if your troops are welcome there or not. Which is exactly what happened.
Which is EXACTLY what your government has done historically.
The other option is to withdraw the troops and give up military standing in that country. Which is what Russia should do. Which is what you should do and should have done.
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:44:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 02:41:46 PM
Shame you can't type comprehensibly.
Sucks that you continuously resort to ad hominem.
:ohboy:
I have often found that the best way to display my superior e-penis (and thus increase my chances of e-mating) is to find a very respected member of a board I have just joined, and pick a fight with him...Much in the manner that timber wolves will employ.
This doesn't WORK, of course, because even if you were Albert Einstein with a PhD in reddit, the simple fact remains that people will not listen to you when you do that, even if you're RIGHT (doubtful), because they LIKE the established member and they don't know you from Martin Bormann.
Is that "fair"? Of course not. Allow me to welcome you to all of human history.
That is all. Carry on.
:popcorn:
Faust, Cain, I am very busy today. Please do not run off the whacko before I have a chance to settle in properly for a little noob-huffing.
I'll try, but no promises.
Never mind. He's a facebook discordian.
Doesn't meet the standard.
This guy posts like AKK.
Someone let me know when he's done running his gob. I have shit to get done.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2014, 04:25:02 PM
Never mind. He's a facebook discordian.
Doesn't meet the standard.
I initially thought that too. But he doesn't know Nigel isn't a guy, which suggests free range tard.
And yes, his noise/signal ratio is pretty high. Fortunately, I'm not doing much today, just a little background research for a project, so I have time to waste.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2014, 04:25:02 PM
Never mind. He's a facebook discordian.
Doesn't meet the standard.
Hm. Perhaps in reply to my level of caring about your "standard" I should quote your avatar. :)
Let's not even get into "Facebook Discordian
tm" and "free range tard
tm".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2014, 04:19:18 PM
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:44:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 02:41:46 PM
Shame you can't type comprehensibly.
Sucks that you continuously resort to ad hominem.
:ohboy:
I have often found that the best way to display my superior e-penis (and thus increase my chances of e-mating) is to find a very respected member of a board I have just joined, and pick a fight with him...Much in the manner that timber wolves will employ.
This doesn't WORK, of course, because even if you were Albert Einstein with a PhD in reddit, the simple fact remains that people will not listen to you when you do that, even if you're RIGHT (doubtful), because they LIKE the established member and they don't know you from Martin Bormann.
Is that "fair"? Of course not. Allow me to welcome you to all of human history.
That is all. Carry on.
:popcorn:
Yeah, this wasn't my intent at all. I only saw some bullshit and said "WTF?!"
Further, I don't care how popular you are, if you're bullshitting, you're bullshitting.
"It doesn't matter how many followers you have: Hitler had millions, Jesus only had 12."
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 05:06:10 PM
Further, I don't care how popular you are,
And, as expected, the point was completely missed.
Hey, Sparky: Next time, try responding to what I SAID, not what you WISH I'd said. Unless the difference between the two is a little much for you to handle. If it is, please save us a lot of time and grief and say so now.
But missing the point and arguing one that he made up in his head is his entire schtick. Are we so cruel as to deny a man his life's calling?
Actually, yeah, we are. Nevermind,
I'd also like to take this moment to remind everyone that the valiant anti-Russian Yulia Tymoshenko overrode the Ukrainian Cabinet in agreeing to a gas deal with Russia in 2009. And that the Russian Foreign Ministry repeatedly raised concerns about her jailing and conditions. And that she's from a Russian family, in a Russian speaking province in Ukraine.
But no, she's really against Russia. A politician wouldn't lie for simple political expediency, would they? Certainly not a former oligarch who made a fortune off Russian gas. Clearly she was jailed for her anti-Russian views, not because she was about to reprise her role as the "Gas Princess" of Kyiv and didn't want to cut the right people in on the deal.