Buzz Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Status update on "Black Sea" http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113978 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 As far as propaganda goes, here in Oz we're getting relatively little information of any sort. No information out of Europe (which makes me suspicious that the US isn't doing too well in the eyes of the populace over there) and precious little "Rah! Rah!, USA!, USA!". I'd suggest, GunHappy, that you're a little isolated, perhaps a little dis-ingenuous. My take on the executive's lead is that he was uncomfortable with the reports that the "democratic coup leaders" were shooting their own supporters as well as police during the riots. Martyrdom is all very well, but it says a lot about the character of the leadership of the coup that they'd decide beforehand to take out any potential rivals in their ranks. Overconfident, for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Guys, please don't make the discussion personal. If your point includes an insult to a forum member, then you should rethink it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Wow, this just became ridiculous, pointless, and totally uninteresting all at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMolestCats Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The riots in the ukraine were not about political ideologies they were about freedom. After the president put into place a set of protest laws (which did not pass through parliment in the correct manner and basiclly made protesting illegal) all hell broke loose. People from all different corners of ukraine rioted against the government, including the people in euromaiden. All of these people gathered together (young and old) to fight back against a dictator and the corrupt Berkut Riot police. As the riots spread from city to city, the president ordered use of live ammunition where then snipers fired into the crowds killing hundreds of people trying to take back their natural right to freedom. Costard you claim that these protesters fired on the police first but that is simply not true, only after the massacre of that unfolded began did the protesters finally arm themselves with pellet guns, handguns and a few hunting rifles. The "president" got desperate and ordered his Berkut thugs to arm themselves with AKs, and to begin firing into the crowds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Martyrdom is all very well, but it says a lot about the character of the leadership of the coup that they'd decide beforehand to take out any potential rivals in their ranks. Got a source for that claim? here in Oz we're getting relatively little information of any sort. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Chill out fellas we're all five eyes in here. Just get along like we are meant to and discuss with a degree of professionalism , if someone claims to know something take their word for it. No need to dispute ALL the things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Catmolester, yes, this is what I am saying. Vanir - link I have a deal more respect for diplomats all the time. This is hard. Putin had a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine, elected by a majority of the Ukranian populace in a popular election. He lost his office due to an armed insurrection - a coup. It is not in Russia's interest to depose him - their own puppet, as has been noted. It is not in Russia's interest to have a divided Ukraine - it is not in Russia's interest to have any sort of NATO missile defense shield set up so close to their borders because it makes a nuclear war winnable, with Russia as the loser. McCain was stirring up trouble in January. If you can find out who paid him (or asked him) to be present in the Ukraine, you will have a better idea of who sponsored the coup. This is hard not because I am seeking to attack the US, or the good people that make up the vast majority of it's inhabitants (most people, whatever their nationality, skin colour or religious beliefs are good - they can and do empathise with others). I am, however, seeking a change in the way people think about their nation. This is necessarily a difficult thing to do - it promotes all sorts of negative emotional responses, justifiable defences. I get that. You are being bombarded - we are all being bombarded - with information that may or may not be truthful, but I need you to think about and critically analyse the data you receive. I need you to approach and analyse the information divorced from emotion because that's the only way you're going to be able to spot the logical faults in the arguments. Else we're at the stage in global politics where the bastards win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I have fought in three different wars for the Good Ole USA (and I still serve). And I have wondered why the hell I was seeing so much blood split in each and every one. Believe me when I say I am extremely critical of my own government and rather objective about its role in the world. That being said, I still wholeheartedly believe it is the best system out there at the moment and will defend it to the fullest. Either on a forum such as this or with a rifle in my hands. Being willing to do so doesnt make me naive, misguided, uninformed or confused. My interest here is and always has been to simply discuss the pros and cons of different courses of action regarding the CMBS scenario and the current situation in Ukraine. Unfortunately we keep getting bombarded by posts telling us (Me personally actually) that we need a lesson in geopolitics. Its very frustrating and I (being a human being like everyone else) rise to the bait occasionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 While that is certainly interesting, there seems to be a lot of speculation here based on scant evidence (i.e. something about the same "type" of bullet being used, based on a conversation with a single person, relayed second hand). It's quite a leap to go from that to the apparent conclusion that this was a US-orchistrated coup. I need you to think about and critically analyse the data you receive I think there needs to be more of that all around, not just among those who see the world differently than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 GunHappy - I wholeheartedly agree that Western political system, where the populace as a whole is required to exercise power and take responsibility for the actions of the nation is the best example of a political system that the world has seen. It is certainly worth defending. There is no doubt that it has delivered the best outcomes for everyone when compared to any other political system. The US has been the shining light of the practice of this for the best part of a century and has found itself in a unique position vis-Ã -vis the expectations of the remainder of the world, expectations of it's decisions and behaviour. But, over the last half century we have seen a devolution of that political system to the point where the populace as a whole does not exercise power - it merely takes the blame (hence the emotional whiplash when US policies and actions are criticised). Socialise risk, privatise profit. Concentrate market share through the establishment and maintenance of cartels and monopolies - energy, mineral resources, information distribution (media ownership), even ideas on spiritual guidance through the exclusive promotion of a religion. This is all happening, has been happening for a while and is about to reach the point where the light-bulb goes off in people's heads - all those rules we decided were unnecessary or promulgated by old farts who couldn't adequately explain the need, those rules we decided didn't apply to us, turns out we were wrong. Rules about honesty, mercy, noblesse oblige, justice, fairness - there are good reasons for those being in place and they need to apply to everyone. Winner takes all is a disaster for the race as a whole, because an individual can't procreate: the outcome is necessarily self-inflicted extinction. The hope is that the light bulb goes off before we get to the point of no return: given the complexity and interdependence of the global economy, the sheer number of work hours that has gone into setting it up to run as it does, the effort and capability required to rebuild that economy is beyond anything ever done before on this planet. The Dark Ages lasted three or four hundred years. The social fallout from World Wars One and Two, in terms of dysfunctional individuals and families resulting from hugely traumatised populations, is still playing out sixty years later. The advent of nuclear power makes the possibility of human extinction within our lifetimes a very real problem to deal with. Getting ourselves involved in a war where there is a high probability of a nuclear exchange, with a resultant probability of a positive feedback loop of further exchanges is not something we want to do. You can believe, if you like, that your (our) leadership is infallible and well informed: I have seen no evidence of this being the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I have fought in three different wars for the Good Ole USA (and I still serve). And I have wondered why the hell I was seeing so much blood split in each and every one. Believe me when I say I am extremely critical of my own government and rather objective about its role in the world. That being said, I still wholeheartedly believe it is the best system out there at the moment and will defend it to the fullest. Either on a forum such as this or with a rifle in my hands. Being willing to do so doesnt make me naive, misguided, uninformed or confused. My interest here is and always has been to simply discuss the pros and cons of different courses of action regarding the CMBS scenario and the current situation in Ukraine. Unfortunately we keep getting bombarded by posts telling us (Me personally actually) that we need a lesson in geopolitics. Its very frustrating and I (being a human being like everyone else) rise to the bait occasionally. If I may be so free as to share my observation, you and others in this thread were quick on the draw; postulating opinions as facts and being long-toed ;-) I agree with you that free democracy is the least bad form of government; that doesn't mean your government can't behave worse than less preferred type of governments of other countries. Especially in the eyes of people living in other countries than your own I bet some western 'NGO projects' or clandestine operations were happening in Ukraine for some time now. One doesn't need to be a psychic to envision that. In fact, it would have been stupid not to have done so. Democracy, Kleptocracy or Dictatorship never mind. Obviously Russia has been doing the same in Ukraine for years. My view on the whole situation is: having lost the last hand of the night at the poker table Russia is out of chips and decides to pull out the AK and get their money back at gunpoint. Which is exactly what the other players would have done functionally in that situation, perhaps in a different way. I love how folks from outside the US pretend to know what the folks that actually live here are thinking/feeling. Granted the same can be said for the US at times but the instances where we are actually asked/begged to interfere with money/influence/trade agreements/planes, tanks, and guns far out number the instances we have acted unilaterally. The reason we are so often INVOLVED is because we simply have the capability and usually a common interest. Actually, the few times we have acted on our own accord we were attacked by outside forces or under the threat of that happening. The idea that the US people (who believe it or not actually do run the govt) support some sort of colonial, empire building conspiracy is laughable. Most of them cant get off the couch unless its to grab another Big Mac. I have certainly indulged in my own conspiracy theorizing about the military industrial complex in the past but experience has taught me they are just too far fetched. Yes there are money grabbing opportunists in our government. Its a free society with plenty of opportunity and when you ask yourself why one would want to become a politician you don't really have to look that far to find the answer. Some just instinctively wanted to attach themselves to the base of power in a society (regardless of whether that was a king, a church, a movement, business, etc). Iraq and Afghanistan, while well intentioned in the beginning, have left some deep scars on the American psyche. Much like post-Vietnam (though for very different reasons) I suspect the US will become more isolationist in the near future, hence the willingness to rely on a very slow diplomatic process re Iran and empty threats to Syria/Russia. I deeply regret we don't currently have the resolve or really capability right now to help in these areas. I think in the long term it would be very good for the west to do so. But on the other hand, I'd just rather they send someone else. Kinda tired (as is this nation) of wondering how much time I will have with my family before going overseas to help clean up someone else's mess. Also, I think you guys are giving our security/intel services way too much credit. If we cant/wont sanction a "get rid of" policy with Snowden (just as an example), how could we facilitate multiple coup attempts in the Russians back yard? Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran (ousting Mossadegh -> Shah), Bay of pigs, etc... Didn't only leave scars in the American psyche. In my opinion you are overlooking how people from other parts of the world are viewing the actions of the US and their justifications. Seeing US foreign policy in action, democracy and human rights in Russia seem to be of more interest than democracy and human rights in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt or Israel/Palestine. I would refer to this policy as hypocrite although probably serving certain interests. But seemingly the US just cares for their own interests. Surprising? Hell no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Seeing US foreign policy in action, democracy and human rights in Russia seem to be of more interest than democracy and human rights in Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Israel/Palestine. Oh! And don't forget Syria and Iran. Russia has been very proactive in democratic and human rights activities there. In fact, it has prevented the evil US from having much, if any, influence internationally thanks to its veto ability at the UN. Which obviously you think is a good thing. I would refer to this policy as hypocrite although probably serving certain interests. But seemingly the US just cares for their own interests. Surprising? Hell no All countries act in their self interests. The Netherlands has been an extremely active member of ISAF and the Coalition in Iraq. I am sure they did not do it to protect and expand American interests. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Bah... I'm arguing with a mindset that won't be changed by discussion. Which is why ChrisND wisely said it shouldn't even be attempted. I'm closing this thread now since it is redundant since starting up the official discussion of the setting. So with that... snap goes the padlock. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts