Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/24/14 10:27 AM, CEPbIU wrote:

Also, new video, i looks like sabotage. No one pleads guilty. There are no victims.

Your video proves absolutely nothing. You need to learn how to argue. Simply showing us a video does not in any way help your case. You need to tell us what the video means, don't just tell us to watch it. And I did watch the minute-long movie, it showed a bridge blowing up. So what?

At 6/22/14 07:51 AM, CEPbIU wrote:

At 6/22/14 12:57 AM, Ranger2 wrote: Honestly, can we stop trying to compare people to Nazis? It's a downright lazy comparison.

Dude, change this will be very difficult and reqire a lot of time. Russians have got one feature- forgiveness. But this reqire repentance from perpetrator.

The USSR occupied East Germany for almost 50 years and received reparations. So I think that Russia has received its due of reparations.

Nowdays west ukraine don't want to to admit that they were wrong . New goverment ruined all diplomatic relationships with us and declared that "Russia attacked Ukraine".

Well, Russian troops went into Crimea. So yes, you did attack Ukraine.

But i shoud give warning that in that situation our people accuse US government and tension grows. I already wached tales about that "US prepearing for nuсlear strike" etc.

So you watch news reports saying the US is preparing for a nuclear strike but you say "don't be brainwashed by CNN." I can believe that CNN's reporting leaves a lot to be desired; don't think that the news reports you watch are fantastic either.

And please, explain why you think that they ( government and national forses) are not nazi?Mostof our people understand that not allukranians are rusofobs and/or nazis if you taking about that.

Here's why the Ukrainian government is not filled with Nazis.

1: They are not advocating that they are a master race
2: They have no allegiance to Hitler
3: They are not German
4: They don't use swastikas.
5: They don't espouse National Socialism.

Really, I could give 100 reasons. If you want to call Ukraine fascist, authoritarian, stupid, then fine. But unless they are saluting Hitler, it is lazy to call someone you don't like a Nazi.

Honestly, can we stop trying to compare people to Nazis? It's a downright lazy comparison.

At 6/21/14 07:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

First off, the Democrats do NOT need to reconcile the past...Lest you thinkwe should all answer for the crimes of our long dead ancestors, and in that case, I think we all have some 'splainin to do.

Reconcile was probably the wrong word. We don't need to apologize or try to right the wrongs of the past - it's been so long. I guess a better word would be acknowledge and accept.

Second, I actually disagree with your entire premise when it comes to the specific age in question, the decade or so right before the Nixon flip. This era, Southern politics were dominated by rcism and the tactics needed to keep racism. The biggest point of the Southern Democratic Party in the late 1950s and early 1960s would sound very much like a current Republican platform: States Rights, Religious freedom, and a general anti-government attitude.

Still, AK Governor Orval Faubus modernized the state's healthcare system, Alabama's George Wallace reform the state's education system, helping to charter the University of South Alabama, and during the 1968 election he was a hit with blue-collar workers, and advocated a full withdrawal from Vietnam. Huey Long, a prominent Democratic governor and senator from Louisiana, was a huge segregationist and labor rights activist, so much so that he was called the "Karl Marx for hilbillies." Back then there were other issues besides segregation, and a lot of fiscally liberal Democrats saw no contradictions between their views on race and views on the government's role in helping out "the common man." While of course people campaigned back then for states' rights, that wasn't their only issue. People still had kids to feed.

Now, mind you, that last point is very much relegated only to the Southern Democrats, and does not include the North Eastern Democrats of that time period.

You do have a point there; the Democratic Party was for a very long time split between North and South. But still, Texas, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Mississippi voted for northern liberal JFK in 1960, and Jimmy Carter won all of the South in 1976, and he would fit in more with the "northern liberal Democrats." It's not like in 1964 racist Democrats decided to switch to the GOP because they felt it better represented them - it was a "fuck you" to Johnson, not a genuine political shift. And although I'm not denying the shift, it didn't happen overnight. I'd say it wasn't until 1994 when the Republicans finally took over the South and converted them to fiscal conservatism. Heck, Democrats controlled most of the South's state legislatures until the 2010 election!

I was working with my fellow Democrats on a campaign for a Democratic congressman yesterday. We were about to go register people to vote on some buses and somebody quipped "It's a good thing we're Democrats doing this; Republicans have a bad history with buses, if you know what I mean."

I knew what he meant, and I disagreed with him.

All too often I've heard people explain away our party's past by saying, "oh, those segregationist Democrats back then would really be Republicans today." And i'm sick of that stupidly simplistic argument. Because segregation was not the only issue people back then thought about.

We Democrats (which I'm italicizing so nobody reading this will think I'm an angry Republican with an axe to grind) need to reconcile and accept our party's racist past. I'll say it again: the Democratic Party has a racist past. If we put all the notable segregationists in the "would be a Republican now" category, then by those standards FDR, Huey Long, and Woodrow Wilson are all Republicans. Maybe even Bill Clinton would be a Republican, since he competed against Orval Faubus (Little Rock Nine Governor) for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Arkansas in 1986.

And it's not just politicians, either. One issue the Democratic Party has stayed consistent in, throughout its entire existence, is dedication to workers' rights. But workers' rights was not tolerant of all races; the AFL for a long time discriminated against black workers, protested immigration from Mexico, and supported reauthorization of the Chinese Exclusion Act, because they feared that cheap immigrant labor would destroy the hope of a minimum wage. They also discriminated against women for a period of time because they saw women, like minorities, as cheap labor. Labor groups were largely supported by the Democratic Party, and even today you see Democratic candidates running on a pro-labor platform. Their history of supporting a fair minimum wage and a higher standard of living for the working-class American is admirable, but many Democrats simply ignore or deny the racial history of the labor groups they support.

Anti-Imperialism is also another true, blue, Democratic value. Who can forget Woodrow Wilson, who fought to make the world safe for democracy by supporting the League of Nations, until the GOP blocked it? Or Harry Truman's successful fight for the UN, (whose charter was written by Jan Smuts, the segregationist Prime Minister of South Africa)? Or the Anti-Imperialist League (who opposed the Spanish-American War because they feared annexation would endanger America's white majority) endorsement of William Jennings Bryan?

I am not writing this to say that anti-imperialism, Wilsonian values, or workers' rights are bad, or inherently racist. I'm not saying that the Democratic Party today is racist (we've all come a long way). I am a Democrat, and except for a brief period from 2010-2011, always have been, and will always be. What I am sick of hearing is the whitewashing of our party's past. Many prominent anti-Imperialists and labor rights activists our party looks up to had very racist views, and they saw no contradictions there. We cannot ignore our past and just say that any Democrat who was racist back then would be a Republican today, because otherwise we would have very few historical Democrats to call our own.

Yes, our party stood against the freedom riders. We supported the KKK in the late 1800s. But at the same time, our party also fought for workers' rights, against imperialist conquest, and an international governing body to put an end to war. We cannot simply take the good and ignore the bad. We Democrats need to realize that our history, like the history of any political party and any country, has skeletons in the closet. Let's stop calling the other party racist because frankly, as Americans we have come so far. Our history is not perfect-no country's history is, but I am tired of hearing that there is such thing as a party that has always been on the right side of history. Like the GOP, we have done great things, and we have erred. I'm not saying we need to apologize. I'm not saying we need to demonize either party as "the racist party." Let's accept our past, and move on.

</end rant>

At 6/20/14 04:50 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So how does everyone feel about this? Do you think Obama is lying to sell his upcoming war?

No, Obama is not going to repeat Bush's mistakes. You could at least understand Bush's stupidity in 2003. Our economy was booming, we had no potential challengers, and patriotism was still high because of 9/11, and we were making gains in Afghanistan with the world behind us. We felt invincible at the time.

Unless Obama wants to be remembered as Bush 2.0 and never have the Democrats win any elected office for 100 years, he's not going to deploy combat troops. This is not the escalation of war; it's a last stand. It's like sending extra military advisors to Saigon praying it may repel the advance of the Vietcong. If this fails, Obama will do nothing more than send arms to Iraq and potentially launch cruise missiles.

At 6/19/14 01:55 PM, zmosh wrote: Is Kim-Jong un really that stupid?

No, he's not. Frankly the whole "I can't believe this country's dictator is so stupid" threads are irritating. You don't stay in power by being stupid. We underestimate Kim Jong-Un (or any dictator) at our own peril.

This is just another political action, like when he killed his uncle. Kim Jong-Un killed his uncle because he may have been a threat to his power. This weather debacle is Kim exercising his power just to show that he can. You don't stay dictator of a country without imposing your will a few times here and there, just so everybody knows who's in charge.

At 6/16/14 05:37 PM, Feoric wrote:

He and his ragtag group of men allegedly took advantage of the situation in Mosul to enact "re-Baathification" or whatever you'd like to call it.

Who knows if it's true. I don't have a hard time believing it, especially when coupled with http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27853362. Basically he says that the strength of the advance and the takeover of Mosul came largely in part due to the involvement of former officers. He then goes on to say that ISIS is not as strong of a force as the former military Baathists and mentions that the capturing of Mosul never would have happened had ISIS not had their help. As a bonus he calls ISIS a bunch of barbarians as well, which demonstrates that their alliance is tepid at best.

I think you are exaggerating Baathist influence in the area. You describe "re-Baathification," but Baathist ideology has almost nothing in common ISIS's brand of Islamism. Since ISIS is in control, they would not allow any real re-Baathification.
We must remember that although Saddam's former generals may be active, this is no longer just an Iraqi war. On the Syrian Front, ISIS is battling Al-Assad's Baathist soldiers just as they are fighting Maliki's. ISIS has no intention of sharing power with Baathists, and frankly I think Saddam's former generals no longer believe in the ideology either. Secular Arab nationalism has been on the decline since 1967, but the Arab Spring signaled the its death knell. Baathism taking power in Iraq has about as much a chance as the Libyan people erecting another Gaddafi-style system. At this point in time the only options for Iraqi Sunnis is ISIS or the Republic of Iraq. There's no room for any middle ground.

I've been on both sides of the aisle. I was apolitical until about 2009, at which point I became more and more conservative (as shown by my BBS posts) and campaigned for the GOP in 2010. I called myself a Republican and while never completely socially conservative, I was against gay marriage. Then as I became disillusioned with the Tea Party, I switched over to the Democratic fold, where I've stayed. I've always been moderate, but my views on gay marriage, government oversight, and taxation have become more liberal over time.

Believe strongly in your core values, but know why they are worth defending. There's no shame in switching from one view to another - it shows open mindedness - but be able to justify to yourself why. I'm involved with Democrats and although I sometimes joke about how I'm trying to "atone" for my role in the 2010 shellacking, I have no regrets about working with the GOP.

At 6/17/14 03:07 PM, exudaz wrote: Or maybe there's always been some level of tension between the different religious groups in the middle east.

Sectarian tensions are one of those factors that people love to exaggerate. In pre-war Damascus and Baghdad, intermarriage rates between Sunnis and Shiites were very high. In Syria, it is considered incredibly rude to ask someone his religion, and both Saddam and Mubarak protected Christians in their countries (Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's top ministers, is Christian).

That's not to say that the Middle East has been free of sectarian tensions, but their eruption is largely a result of the war, not a cause of it. Wars, battles, destruction all cause panic and fear, and when people are afraid they are more likely to stay with their "own kind." These divisions had all existed for centuries, but they were kept under control because of the domestic peace in the countries.

What worries me though is the cost of doing nothing. If ISIS consolidates control I'm sure it would launch attacks on the West. It would be like Afghanistan was in August 2001, except bigger, sitting on oil, and next to Western allies and closer to Europe. Is doing nothing really an option? I would support airstrikes and bombings. The worst part about this is that there is no clear, good solution. Any action we do, no matter how big or little, would suck. But inaction may prove more costly.

At 6/14/14 08:50 PM, Feoric wrote: ISIS has basically captured all that they can at this point, there's not much more Sunni land they can just waltz into and declare as theirs. Basically the next stage is fighting; if they advance any more then they're in Shia territory. Samara will likely be where the heaviest fighting will occur but don't expect Baghdad to fall. If anything it's more likely that the biggest bloodshed experienced in Baghdad will be pissed off Shias purging Sunnis with reprisal killings, not the other way around.

It seems that the US and Iran are both in a catch-22. The United States is supporting the rebels in Syria (which indirectly helps ISIS, since I doubt the rebels, if victorious, can rout ISIS) and supporting the Iraqi government. Iran's catch-22 is a bit more direct-it's supporting the Iraqi government while simultaneously funding Shia insurgents like the Special Groups.

What we have to realize is that Syria's war is becoming Iraq's war. If we choose to support the rebels in Syria we will strengthen ISIS. Doesn't mean we should turn around and support al-Assad (or should we?) but the border between Iraq's and Syria's wars has fallen. We may be seeing the end of the Sykes-Picot lines.

At 6/13/14 12:20 PM, Feoric wrote: Not necessarily. Arguably the biggest problem with Iraq besides the incessant violence is the fact that both Shias and Sunnis view the government as illegitimate.

What I do wonder, though, is if the Iraqi Shiites believe their government is illegitimate, who do they view as legitimate? You could say they view Iran as legitimate, but Iran and Iraq are made up of different ethnicities (Persian and Arab) and they speak different languages (Farsi and Arabic). Iran and its rebel groups will only see limited support in eastern Iraq. I think most Iraqi Shiites are going to continue to support the Iraqi government, if not out of love and patriotism, then because they have no other choice.

At 6/11/14 07:22 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Bomb the place strategies haven't worked

Hiroshima and Nagasaki say otherwise.

Actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not good examples in this scenario, because there is a difference between winning the war and winning the peace. Yes, the two (justified) atomic bombings won us the war, but after a war comes occupation. The reason why Japanese occupation went smoothly was not because the Japanese were terrified we might nuke them a third time, but because MacArthur used the Emperor to stifle dissent.

ISIS is an insurgency, which means it has the support of the people in the area. That means bombing alone won't solve anything. In the short term, bombing Mosul and Fallujah could drive them out, but it won't keep them out. We need to find ways to incentivize the locals to fight against ISIS in addition to bombing strikes. Otherwise, the moment we stop bombing, ISIS will come back and we'd be back where we started.

At 6/11/14 09:27 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: I'm not saying the invasion was necessarily justified, but I dislike the lie that the U.S. "broke" something that had once "worked" and that the thing in question would still "work" if the U.S. hadn't "broke" it

That all depends on your definition of "working." By Weber's definition of a state - maintaining a monopoly of violence - Saddam's Iraq was working perfectly. As for its economy, the sanctions had crippled the Iraqi economy, but oil revenues still kept it to a certain standard of living. As for democracy, of course there was none, but should that be a criteria for a failing state? Maybe to you it does, and I'm sure there are a million heartfelt reasons why. In my book, the state's primary goal is getting people out of the State of Nature and suppressing domestic violence. So as far as I'm concerned, we did break something that was working.

Dredd I understand your point but there are better ways to argue it. Make a statement, and go beyond ad hominem. Otherwise you seem less like an intellectual debater and more of a troll.

I look at it this way: Why did the United States invade Iraq but not North Korea? Why did Russia invade Ukraine but hasn't touched the Baltic states? My answer is one word: nukes.

Nukes are the ultimate deterrent for war. Nobody wants a nuclear war nor does anybody think they can win one without MAD. If you take nukes out of the picture, you'd only facilitate a conventional arms race like what Reagan tried to do in the 1980s. You'd have further militarized countries and less of a deterrent. Nukes are horrible things but they are better at deterring war than prompting it.

Speaking from an American POV, I'm against Scottish independence. We have a special relationship with the UK, and a strong UK is good for the world. I wouldn't want any strong, democratic US ally to be split up.

At 6/3/14 09:36 PM, Feoric wrote: Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed during the impeachment proceedings, while the GOP's support plummeted. Now, I'm not saying the Republican establishment are all rational actors, but I'd like to think they're not stupid enough to do this before the midterm elections are over. If they capture the Senate, which is very possible at the moment, then I'd take talk of impeachment more seriously.

I'd like to think that the GOP is slowly learning from its mistakes. I think the last government shutdown finally made more rational, establishment GOP turn against the Tea Party and now there's fighting between the two. Plus with the last two shutdowns that the public blamed the Republicans for, I think they're not so crazy as to talk about impeachment. I really think in the next few years we will see a GOP that is learning from its mistakes, otherwise by 2020 there will be barely anything left of the party.

Saying BDS is purely anti-Semitic is ignorant. There are tons of better ways to discredit BDS than by calling it anti-Semitic.

At 5/25/14 04:58 AM, Repsi wrote: My opinion says against because they cant have babies naturally like heterosexuals can.

I agree; everyone who gets married must be required to have at least one kid, and nobody who is sterile may get married. Ban vasectomies too.

In a new development, Putin has promised to withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine's border. NATO officials have urged him to keep his word. Will he?

I think at this point Putin wants to defuse tensions over Crimea. Time is on his side, and if he can slink back to his borders with Crimea in tow, the international community will eventually just accept the fact that Crimea is now in Russian hands. He may have gotten a little scare with not just the bad press worldwide, but also the fact that some of the rebels refused his demands to delay the referendum, signaling a lack of control over them.

So will there be a next time? I don't know, and wouldn't be surprised if there were. This may be the end of the Crimean issue, but not the end of the Russian expansion issue.

At 5/13/14 07:50 AM, vyacheslav wrote: By the way, forgot to write. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of a new state of Ukraine, Crimea has included in its membership on the rights of the almost complete autonomy, with its own Constitution, its own President, its government. In 1995...

That is an interesting argument. Any sources to back it up?

Here are the five steps I said I'd take, in no particular order. Feel free to comment on these, or better yet, let us know what your five steps would be.

1: To bolster possible US and/or coalition actions against Abroadistan, I'd push for a UNSC and/or UN General Assembly resolution condemning and sanctioning the Abroadi regime. That way the US wouldn't lose soft power if we or a coalition decide to attack.

2: Launch surgical airstrikes on Col. E. Vill's nuclear and intelligence facilities to prevent them from becoming nuclear capable. Ideally we'd do this with the aid of several other countries, but for something this small we may be able to do unilaterally with little fuss. The purpose of these strikes is to ensure that not only nuclear weapons aren't used on the Abroadi people, but so that Abroadistan doesn't have a deterrent against foreign military intervention.

3: Aid and arm Freedomia's military to better respond to terrorist attacks and provide intel on Abroadistan's terror networks. This would reinforce our alliance with Freedomia and preserve US influence in the region.

4: Keep an eye out for what countries are aiding the FFA, and match the next highest country's contributions, but avoid giving heavy or high-tech weapons. Only conventional weapons. We want to get recognized by the rebels as on their side, but don't want to actually turn the tide of the war. If another country does send troops or heavy weapons, do NOT send in troops or heavy weapons also. We can make the rebels think we're friends so that if they win, they'll be at least cordial to us, and if they lose, well, Col. E Ville didn't like us anyway.

5: I would order humanitarian airlifts of food and propaganda to New Spigot. The packages would contain food, clothes, medicine, and leaflets criticizing Col. E Ville and describing the US's (hopefully) shared values of democracy and describe any actions we may have taken against the Abroadi government.

I would never send troops into Abroadistan, nor would I want to change the tide of the war because I would not want us to get into nation-building. Our goal is to be better off whether or not the rebels win. With this plan, my thought process is that if the rebels win, they don't have weapons that could be used against us, and they may even be cordial to us thanks to our humanitarian aid. If Col. E Ville wins, his army will be weakened, and he will have to start all over again in trying to get nuclear or biological weapons if he was trying to get them in the first place. We must appear to side with the rebels but ideally we should be better off no matter who wins. It's not our job to fight the war, it's our job to benefit from the peace.

I'd like to share with you a fun exercise I was given on an American Foreign Policy exam. It asks you to pretend you're the President of the United States, gives you a foreign policy situation, and asks you to list five steps you'd take to resolve the situation, and how they would serve the US or the world's interest. I'll put what my response was on another post. I'd like to hear what you all would do if faced with this question:

"Col. E. Ville, the autocratic leader of Abroadistan, has been harassing political opponents and religious minorities for years. He has imprisoned rivals without trial, suspended elections and embezzled tens of millions of dollar's from the country's treasury. A previously unknown defector recently told the CIA that Abroadistan is developing biological and perhaps nuclear weapons. The regime is also funding terrorist attacks in Freedomia, a longtime U.S. ally and major supplier of oil to the American economy. Abroadistan, too, has significant energy supplies and also controls New Spigot, the most important oil port in the region.

Two weeks ago, without warning, a previously unknown opposition group staged a protest outside the presidential palace and demanded that Col. Ville leave the country. Civilians, who have felt long oppressed, soon poured into the streets to support the opposition. As Ville ordered his security forces into action, some government troops defected to the rebel cause. A civil war broke out near New Spigot, with forces loyal to the government battling rebel groups in heavily populated urban areas. The fighting shut down New Spigot and stopped the flow of oil.

The rebels, calling themselves Fighters for a Free Abroadistan, or FFA, say they want to open the country to democracy and a market economy. Ville says they are masquerading as democrats and are really nothing but terrorists and profiteers. The FFA, asserting that innocent Abroadis are facing a humanitarian crisis and that Ville will commit genocide if allowed to remain in office, has appealed for international help.

"You may consider any kind(s) of action that makes sense to you. A temporary or permanent decision not to intervene? Immediate unilateral or multilateral action? Targeted air attacks? Sanctions? A criminal indictment by the International Criminal Court? An appeal to the UN? Direct talks with the belligerents? A humanitarian airlift of supplies? There is no perfect solution; the call is yours."

Now, Putin is asking pro-Moscow separatists to delay an independence referendum. Not entirely sure what this means.

Russia's stocks surged after the announcement, possibly because of less fear over new sanctions. Maybe it's because Putin did not want the situation to escalate as quickly as it did. Maybe it's just a ploy, or maybe he's losing control over the rebels.

There's a lot of maybes, and discontent among the rebels. Some rebels say they'll heed Putin's requests, while others argue that they've come too far already.

Not sure if this is Putin beginning to sweat, or possibly another Chamberlain "peace in our time" hope. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, but we'll see.

At 5/3/14 08:10 AM, vyacheslav wrote: Yes, of course. You me exposed. Get 100 bucks for the post.

Honestly, doesn't this bother anyone? That Putin is sending out cybertrolls to make the case for Russian imperialism?

At 4/26/14 10:55 AM, mile667 wrote: I only say poor Ukraine very divided between East and West I think some things you forget to ignore what about the Ukraine Economy there wery close to go bankrupt and that Ukraine owes 1,55 Dollars to gasprom talking about Russia is want thing but when are they help Ukraine economicly?

That doesn't matter. You're saying a country can invade another's sovereignty as long as their economy is helped? Russia's economy was downgraded by S&P to just above junk, and civil unrest in Ukraine sure makes doing business a lot harder.

One thing I would like to add, though; scientists have not proved evolution. Science really is not very good at indisputably proving things, and according to the scientific method, rarely tries to. Evolution is a theory, which means that while so far it has passed just about every test we've thrown at it, we cannot say "case closed." We never can. And don't take my word-any scientist who studies evolution would tell you that science is proof without certainty. In fact, scientists don't accept any hypotheses; they either reject or fail to reject one.

So, yes, evolution does require some belief. It has stood up to tests better than creationism, but ultimately, to accept the idea of evolution as we know it as complete and perfectly true takes belief. So yes, if you have no doubts about evolution, you believe in evolution. If you fail to reject it as a hypothesis and continue testing it, then you are thinking like a scientist.

What I'm wondering is how strong this secession sentiment was in Ukraine before Euromaidan. It seems like this is mostly a reaction to the ousting of Yanukovich. Were there any massive protests to secede before 2014?