331–340 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, we pushed NATO onto the borders of Russia. I can't imagine the US would be too happy with Russian military bases on our borders.
What a nonsense. No one pushed NATO onto borders of Russia. Russian neighbors joined NATO because they have bad experience with Russia, that's all.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-ex...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy to dig up those statistics for you. Part of the reason is that I consider your question to be fundamentally misdirected. First, I'd like to point out that medical staff form just the tip of the iceberg in terms of wage-reduction by immigrants. For example, my father in law lives in an old age home staffed almost entirely with low-wage foreigners - a mix of immigrants, migrants, what-have y…
Fleeing from countries such as Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia? And pretending there are only two options - let them stay forever, or gun them down at the border, is dishonest at best. We ship food half way around the world, there's no reason wealthy countries can't fund refugee camps and in general help and give aid to countries that accept refugees. This would also reduce the number…
Turks, Greeks and (though you didn't mention them) Italians are another matter: The industries of Germany (and other countries) practically begged people from these countries to come to Western Europe and augment labor pools here. The first deals were for short-term working arragements; later it was decided that there were good humanitarian and societal reasons to let these people emigrate and stay. The city I live in has a complement of about 10% (ethnic) Turks plus a colorful mixture of other origins. My dentist is a Turk!
Your idea of shipping aid to where it's needed is poorly considered, as another commenter has explained nearby. Syria, for example, continues to be a slaughterhouse, and its broken infrastructure can't feed and house people in bales of money.
No, it's not governments blackmailing their public to breed faster - the compulsion to maintain population figures is a purely social thing, no coercion needed. Former immigrants from Turkey and elsewhere will be working to pay part of my pension. You, meanwhile, are considering immigration as a threat. I have to tell you, your concern about "ethnic minorities" in London really is troubling. When people from other countries emigrate to England, they become British, and then only racists are concerned that those British people or their parents were formerly residents of a different country. Do I need to remind you that the USA is populated almost exclusively by emigrants from other countries? Oh wait, most of those were white, so that makes it... different? Conclude what you will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So...90% of Crimeans voted to join the USSR in a fair and open election with international observers?
And to leave
A) No international observers were allowed.
B) Russia President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.
C) Falklands was a UK territory, not invaded, and had free & fair elections with 90% in favor because they were scared of Argentina trying to annex them. Pretty much the opposite situation on all points. But please, go ahead and show evidence I am wrong ;)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to leave
Evidence? A) No international observers were allowed. B) Russia President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor. C) Falklands was a UK territory, not invaded, and had free & fair elections with 90% in favor because they were scared of Argentina trying to annex them. Pretty much the opposite si…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
B/c they can't invade fully, they need some pretext. Also even if they wanted to, they don't have the forces to occupy Kiev.
"they need some pretext." Russian law would give this pretext. Putin would be obligated by the constitution to protect "Russians" abroad. Ukraine has a huge Russian minority. " Also even if they wanted to, they don't have the forces to occupy Kiev." Ukraine is currently on the level of a 3rd world country. Russia would have air superiority within 24 hours. And the Russian military is still a formidable opponent, even…
Russian law is not recognized outside of Russia. Besides, that logic would give him legal authority to conquer half of Eastern Europe.
> Ukraine is currently on the level of a 3rd world country. Russia would have air superiority within 24 hours
Do you have any idea what occupation means? It's soldiers, hundreds of thousands of them, and money/supplies to remain for years. Russia's economy is in decline, their armed forces are already deployed and stretched around the world.
This isn't a video game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evidence? A) No international observers were allowed. B) Russia President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor. C) Falklands was a UK territory, not invaded, and had free & fair elections with 90% in favor because they were scared of Argentina trying to annex them. Pretty much the opposite si…
I love when people think the results they like are fair election and the others are rigged.
So you don't have any evidence and Russia was caught red handed that they lied about the results...and that is your response? LOL. K.
Look, when you get caught lying about the election...yeah, people tend to believe the fact you are lying when it benefits you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's just imagine that a newly-emboldened Putin decides to annex part of another European country, like he got away with over Ukraine. Let's say some Baltic state, like Estonia. Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that country was under the NATO umbrella?
You might want to stop imagining things and keep up with the reality. Because the reality is that Russia has basically no military stations around the planet in foreign countries and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor.
Except for the ones they are engaging in full scale war (bombing hospitals and schools) to protect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the bases aren't actual aggression, you know. They're generally built based on agreements with host countries. Most often the host countries enthusiastically welcome them. Invading Georgia is aggression. Invading Ukraine is aggression. Sending "little green men" over is. Sending anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down civilian planes over the "Novorossiya" puppet regime's controlled area is.
Yeah I saw that CNN interview where the girl from Ossetia was telling what actually happened and then got cut off for "technical difficulties" :). Georgia got off easy. As for Ukraine - yeah Russia occupied Crimea, but it was either that or risk a crack that could disintegrate it entirely. Israel struck first in the 7 day war as well, and good that they did, because otherwise they wouldnt exist. History is full of su…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to stop imagining things and keep up with the reality. Because the reality is that Russia has basically no military stations around the planet in foreign countries and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor.
> and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor. And Nato is of course "expanding", "cornering" and "surrounding" Russia too. Just like a map makes obvious...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's time to move past this whole thing and focus on trade and cooperation, not conflict. War is over laddies and gentlemen !
War will never be "over", but it can be minimized. One good way to do that is through (real) free trade. Countries that depend on each other economically are generally less likely to go to war with each other. Wasn't it Jack Ma who said "when trade stops, war starts"?
You are right. In the past 60 years, since NATO/UN/Pax Americana there has been less war than any other time in recorded history.
And you, as well as countless others in MAGA hats are celebrating it's downfall. Unless you are Putin himself, or an sadist, I don't understand your position.