1,920 Forum Posts by "Ranger2"
At 4/20/14 05:40 PM, Th-e wrote: Well, regardless of how much disruption takes place, it looks like Putin is interested in taking those areas over. The disruptions we are seeing in Donetsk are spreading.
I can't believe how much things have changed since February. I remember around the time Yanukovich was ousted that Ukraine was going to try to join the EU and flip a giant middle finger to Russia. I thought the Ukrainian Revolution would be a massive political victory for the West and a huge loss to the Russians. If anyone had told me that Putin would invade Ukraine, I'd say he was ridiculous. How scary it is that Putin has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, partly because the international community is doing nothing.
At 4/19/14 12:31 PM, CEPbIU wrote: But if you think that all Ukrain is clear and there no nazi, just wach this from begining to the end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skGOtMYUsfI
ENOUGH! CEPblU, if you want to make an argument, argue something! Don't just give someone a video and tell them to watch it. It's YOUR job to watch the video, it's YOUR job to quote it, and it's YOUR job to argue it. You prove absolutely nothing by giving someone a video, and if you continue to debate like that you will lose every time.
In a new twist, allegations have arisen of pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine ordering local Jews to register themselves to the new authorities.
Multiple news sources have reported that Ukrainian Jews have been accosted near their synagogues by rebel forces, demanding that they register their homes, families, cars, and other belongings. The fliers are allegedly signed by Denis Pushilin, President of the unrecognized Donetsk People's Republic.
So far, it is unconfirmed whether or not these anti-Semitic orders truly are the work of the pro-Russian rebels. They have been denounced by diplomats abroad and denied by the leaders of the pro-Russian rebels.
So as of yet, i don't know if these orders were really sent by the rebels or planted by someone who wants to discredit the rebels. I don't think that these fliers were sent on Putin's orders; Jews in Russia don't have to register themselves, and while Putin is many horrible things, I don't think he's anti-Semitic. Even if he were anti-Semitic, however, Putin would not do something like that because it would cause unnecessary trouble.
If these orders are genuine, however, Putin would find himself in a real bind. He would lose further face in supporting the rebels, and it could strain Putin's control over them. This may be a case of Putin getting more than he bargained for, although we will find out the answer once the origin and intent of these anti-Semitic orders are confirmed.
At 4/14/14 05:02 PM, Feoric wrote:Oh, and I believe Russia may eventually take over ALL of Ukraine, not just the east. And I cannot rule out their going after Poland, since Poland used to be under Soviet control. Russia wants the land it used to control back.Poland has Europe's 5th largest army, so, no.
Poland is not exactly a military power but I see your point. The Poles HATE the Russians, so there would be war if the Russians tried to invade.
At 4/10/14 06:53 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Seriously cam, ranger, your guys' requirements for conversational debate is fucking dumb, and I'm ashamed for you both.
Well I disagree with you. How do I prove it? Watch this video.
At 4/10/14 11:56 AM, ANISOCIAL wrote: If a person cant accept opinion of other man and truthful materials (video) - i wash my hands of it . and I invite him to continue to remain in blissful ignorance.
I don't care what you're arguing; but you have to do more than throw a bunch of videos at someone. You should use source material to show that you're not making shit up, but don't use it as your whole argument. If the movies you use are so great, quote them! But make an argument that is your own work.
Let's be honest, if I were to give you this hour and a half documentary on why Putin is bad, or this video about Putin's corrupt rise to power, or this documentary supposedly "banned by Putin," would you really watch them all before rebutting? I don't think you would and I wouldn't blame you. They're all at least an hour long. Simply giving me videos to watch does not count as an argument. I do not win the argument if you don't watch them. I don't even prove anything at all just by showing these videos without some argument of my own. If I want to use those videos as source material, it would be MY job to watch them all and MY job to quote them. Not yours.
If you want to use videos as proof, fine. But it is YOUR job to watch them and quote them. You do not provide the videos for someone to watch, you provide them as evidence you're not making shit up.
At 4/9/14 02:06 PM, ANISOCIAL wrote: you enough examples? or need more?)
ANISOCIAL, giving videos does not constitute an argument. If your teacher/professor tells you to write an essay expressing a point of view, do you just hand in the bibliography and say "here, read these!"? No, you don't. It's not Feoric's responsibility to watch the videos you provide links to. That is YOUR job. It's your job to watch them, decide what information is relevant to you, and then quote it as part of an argument that is your own work.
Don't just throw source material at Feoric; make an actual argument. Put some thought into it. Synthesize some facts, put in a quote or two, but ultimately you should be able to argue whatever it is you are arguing. If your only response to someone who disagrees with you is "well, watch this video!" that shows that you are unable to coherently argue your own case and that you don't even understand it. Feoric is not asking the creators of the video to rebut his arguments; he's asking YOU. So if you're going to argue, actually argue!
Unfortunately, it seems that Russia can only win at this point. There is no way negotiations will satisfy either side within 48 hours, and using force will cause Russia once again to proclaim itself the heroic white knight who saves the endangered Russians, and invade.
So will there be a war in 2 days? I don't really think so; the Ukrainians know that they would lose any war against Russia. They're purely on the defensive, and Eastern Ukraine will go to Russia without a fight. Meanwhile the world does nothing. If Russia annexes East Ukraine we need NATO to arm Ukraine and immediately vote for its inclusion into NATO. Meanwhile, we need to further boost weapons sales to enemies of Russia like Georgia, and even yes, arm some protestors in Syria. Not enough to actually turn the tide of battle in Syria, but enough to make al-Assad sweat, and by extension, make Russia sweat.
To update the topic, Pro-Russian riots have engulfed several more Ukrainian cities, threatening Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In cities like Donetsk and Luhansk, which are largely Russian-speaking areas, protestors are calling for referendums similar to the one in Crimea. The Ukrainian government blames Putin and Yanukovich for encouraging this separatist sentiment.
At this point Crimea is no longer just Putin's goal, I think. He wants to annex Eastern Ukraine and gain the entire northern half of the Black Sea. However, at this point I am genuinely starting to wonder if Putin wanted this to happen so fast. Russia's diplomatic relations with the world have been severely hurt, and it has very almost no soft power outside of Russophone areas.
I think that Putin eventually wants a revitalized Russian Empire, and I have no doubt Eastern Ukraine will fall to Russia, but will this hurt or help Putin? He's already seen as a dictator, but a landgrabbing one at that. It certainly would spur further sanctions and jeopardize future EU-Russia relations. Ukraine promised that any more territorial advances by Russia on its territory will result in war. Still, there has been very little bloodshed, and I think most likely Ukraine will not fight unless the areas that are not Russophone are invaded.
It's tough to tell what will happen. Do you think these protests and their possible subsequent annexation will lead to anything major? Do they differ in any way from the annexation of Crimea, or are they part of a larger plan?
At 4/7/14 10:14 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The talk about Jews and what it means to be Jewish is nice and all, but what exactly does it have to do with Russia? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is one post by an overt racist and anti-semite spouting a laughable conspiracy theory about Jew-bots and Jew-lasers or some other bullshit.
At 4/7/14 12:42 AM, Warforger wrote:At 4/6/14 09:12 PM, Ranger2 wrote: No, it's not. Speaking as a Jew, Judaism is not a race. I don't even know why there is still a debate on this, but that article only shows one view of an issue that has not been resolved.I guess what they're trying to say is that Jews or Jewry are an ethnic group, Judaism is their specific religion. In order to be a religious Jew you must be genetically related to a Jew or else you're not going to be accepted by others.
What makes overarching statements about Jews inaccurate is the fact that there is a ton of diversity in Judaism. There are communities where some Jews will not recognize practicing Jews whose mothers are not Jewish, but more liberal sects like mine (reform Judaism) don't care about your lineage, and are very welcoming to new converts. You ever hear the phrase, "two Jews, three opinions"? It's very true.
At 4/3/14 10:08 AM, FordV8 wrote: It's both a race and a religion.
http://forward.com/articles/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/?p=all
No, it's not. Speaking as a Jew, Judaism is not a race. I don't even know why there is still a debate on this, but that article only shows one view of an issue that has not been resolved.
At 4/5/14 07:32 AM, mile667 wrote: Its true US does this things I mentioned and what holes? if you think im wrong just go and watch the movie The War on Democracy on you tube its directed by the British filmmakers Christopher Martin and John Pilger...Just watch the movie and see for your self:)
No, no, no, that's not how arguments work. You can quote selectively from source material, or if it's short enough, say "read this." But you can't pull out an hour and a half video and say "watch the whole thing, you'll see my point of view." Your arguments should not back up the source material; the source material should back up your arguments. Make your argument, quote parts of the movie that back it up, but then present it as your own work and not just parroting what you've read.
As a debater, your job is not to point out source material for me to read. It is your job to synthesize the source material you find relevant and turn it into your own argument. Otherwise, I could just retaliate your post by Googling a video that says that "America is wonderful/Putin is Hitler" and say, "here, watch that!" Frankly, I doubt you've even watched all of War on Democracy.
This is a spirited response, and rest assured this is not aimed just at you. This is aimed at all those who mistake copy/pasting a link with making a valid argument. Debating is like writing an essay; you don't just write down the bibliography and tell the teacher, "here, read these." You take bits and pieces from the sources and turn it into your own work. THAT is debating.
At 4/3/14 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Big difference. Ukraine is in Russia's sphere and was not much of a US ally. Taiwan and Japan are both strong US allies. Any act of war on them will be an act of war against the US.
In 2008, Russia declared war on a US ally, Georgia, and seized territory there. And its invasion of Crimea was a direct response to the Euromaidan protests. As our rivals perceive US weakness they will be increasingly bold. Their soft power status quo that they've been held to the last few decades won't last if they think they can be aggressive and get away with it.
At 4/3/14 03:27 PM, orangebomb wrote: In their minds, the Russians felt like they were being surrounded, so they took advantage of the chaos in Ukraine, and I think we all knew how it turned out.
I don't think it's enough to say that the Russians felt like they were being surrounded and threatened somehow. I think Russia and China have been sitting back this past decade, building up their economies and militaries (stamping out political repression while they're at it) and waiting for the US to do something stupid, like start a trillion dollar unpopular war in Iraq. Once we've exhausted ourselves, they've started to test the waters. Russia is testing the waters by annexing Crimea, and if he is able to do so with little punishment, China will no doubt in the near future try something with Senkaku or Taiwan.
At 4/1/14 09:44 AM, mile667 wrote:
Im not under any illusions the West cooked this whole conflict to begin with they couldnt allow Ukraine to turn to Russia and thats way Yanukovych needed to go down sure he was bastard hes like any other politician in my Country of Croatia corruption,thievery,suspicious privatization.But another thing that the Western medias ignore is that one part of the Euromaiden protesters were the members of the Right Sector a Nationalist political party and a paramilitary collective of several organizations for more information read this link
First off Svoboda has moderated its stance a long time ago. But even if that were true, I could also argue that the Communists (who are just as bad as the fascists) in Russia are perfectly happy annexing Crimea. Mikhail Gorbachev praised the annexation.
Russia is a very big and influential country and its impossible to isolate them Europe very depends on them this isn,t cold war you know things have changed its easy to say for you your country(US)Does nt have big economic ties and doesnt depends on the Russian gas(Since you fight a lot wars in the Middle East to get it)
Is it really not the Cold War? The Cold War was never about capitalism vs communism, democracy vs dictatorship. It was always a competition for power and influence. The Cold War never ended in 1991; it just took a break. Now Russia's on the rebound and they're doing the same things they were doing when they were the USSR; trying to establish hegemony.
As for the thing you said about the build up anti-Russian sentiment in easter europe there is one country could Serbia that loves Russia and very much and hates your government a lot you know that country you invade in the time of March 24, 1999 .
Yeah, the poor, poor, genocidal Serbian generals don't like us very much, do they?
Racism is such a useful tool. It allows you to demonize someone you disagree with without having to offer a genuine rebuttal.
At 3/31/14 10:17 AM, mile667 wrote:
Im sorry but I see you are full of emotions IF EU hits Russia with economic sanctions this same sanctions will return to EU as a boomerang EU has a lot of economic ties with Russia...
You yourself need to calm down. Take a deep breath. Nobody thinks that sanctions are painless, and of course Russia is going to sanction the West right back. Nobody ever thought otherwise. You're under the illusion that Western leaders were flabbergasted when Putin sanctioned their countries. Believe it or not, the G7 actually though about the consequences of their actions before acting.
If EU trows Russia out off G8 and G20 Russia will be forced to turn even more to China and will definitely not be in the interests of the West
Russia under Putin was never really a friend to the West. Our interests are conflicting, and he's been trying to make the West look week ever since he took office. Our sanctions are going to make him turn unfriendly towards the West? You're 14 years behind.
My final Conclusion is this the only thing the West can do is this Woof, woof, Woof ,woof.The only thing they can do know is use heavy rhetoric whit the help of there mainstream Medias because any other option will work totally against them then actually working for them.
Again, you are under the illusion that we think these sanctions are going to cause Russia to withdraw from Crimea with its tail between its legs. Nobody is thinking that. What we can do is economically isolate Russia and build up anti-Russian sentiment and make sure that the rest of Eastern Europe (and other countries) do not trust Russia, or at least think twice before doing business with Russia. If the West truly wanted to, we could force Russia out of Crimea through force, but that is too costly, and the only beneficiary of that battle would be China.
At 3/28/14 12:05 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Obama urged Putin to move the buildup of troops from the border today. I imagine the exchange will be like this:
Obama: Pull your troops back.
Putin: OR WHAT?
Obama: Or... I'll talk with some others in the international community and then ask you to pull them back again. Don't make me call for more sanctions.
Wildfire4461, what would you prefer he do? If we wanted to get Russia out of Crimea using force we probably could, but it would cost massive amounts of money and lives to do so. The only beneficiary out of a Russo-American war over Crimea would be China.
Obama is not stupid enough to think that a UN resolution and sanctions are going to have Russia crawling out of Crimea with their tails between their legs. But what we can do with minimal injury to us is isolate Russia as far as we can, to hurt their trade routes and make sure nobody trusts Putin again. We can at least make this as politically disastrous for Russia as Iraq was for us.
When it comes to West vs. East, you can't think of it in terms of right and wrong. The West and East do what they do for the same reason; to spread their interests and beat out their competitors. I think the West at least tries to have a better human rights record than the East, although both are not above supporting corrupt dictators.
Ultimately, the question is not democracy vs authoritarianism. It's who do you want to be more powerful? The West or the East? Seeing as I live in the West, if somebody is going to be in charge, I'd rather it be us than them.
At 3/27/14 09:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The UN has done quite a bit. Numerous well respected treaties and economics accords have been propogated through it.
I would have to say that as far as aggressive action goes it is pretty impotent.
What Korriken was getting at is one of the cornerstones of political realism: States are the most important actors. International forums like the UN can pass all the resolutions they want and countries can sign all the treaties they want, but ultimately it's up to the state what happens.
The UN is no great equalizer when it comes to powerful vs weak states. It can be a forum for powerful states to make agreements with each other, and weaker states to make agreements with each other. But ultimately any agreement between powerful and weak states, be it in the UN or the real world, rests upon the goodwill of the powerful states. Why was no UN resolution passed condemning the Iraq War? Because two major powers, the US and UK, were on the Security Council and many of our allies didn't want to risk economic sanctions that would come with a vote condemning us. But the UN had no problem condemning Iraq in the 1990s and Libya in 2011 because they were small, weak, and isolated. With Russia we see an even mixture: Russia is too strong to be slapped with a Security Council resolution, but it's isolated enough that a nonbinding resolution calling the Crimean referendum illegitimate (without explicitly condemning Russia) can be passed.
At 3/27/14 06:20 PM, Korriken wrote:
Take them off the land and force them onto the worst piece of land they can find, probably somewhere crops find it hard to grow and there is little water, if any. They'll ask, they'll promise them something great, they'll fall for it and end up with a place where famine is all but certain.
Non Russians will soon be moving with in the Tatars, while the UN sends Putin strongly worded letter of condemnation and non binding resolutions for them to restore Ukraine and Crimea while Putin laughs his ass off at the world's pathetic response.
I'm actually surprised Putin is doing this. This is a great way to incite an insurgency, and especially since the majority of Tartars are Muslim, this could incite massive protests against Russia in the Middle East. That coupled with the fact that Russia is backing al-Assad, and maybe people in the Middle East will start burning Russian flags instead of American ones.
At 3/26/14 08:53 PM, Elitistinen wrote: And now the Russian want to 'relocate' the local Tatars. Look who's the fascist now?
I read that article and didn't see anywhere where Putin plans to relocate Tartars. Putin is many things, but he's not stupid. He's not going to try to relocate Tartars and incite an insurgency. But hey, if I'm wrong, please quote in the article where Putin plans to relocate the Tartars.
At 3/24/14 01:50 PM, Korriken wrote:
Some people are unintelligent and incapable of critical thinking skills of any kind and simply fall for whatever they are told to fall for...As such, you can turn a democracy into a flat out dictatorship if you do it slowly, with plenty of propaganda, and even have people cheering you on, until they realize they fell for your trickery and speaking out against their new master will result in them disappearing.
It's not as simple as that. History has shown that people will gladly accept authoritarianism if that means economic security. Under Putin, Russia's economy has strongly grown, and Russia's military prestige is on the rise. If that means more jobs available and a bigger paycheck to the average Russian, what does he care about his voting rights? Had Putin taken power and failed to grow Russia's economy, he'd probably have been ousted or voted out. And unless we punish Russia for their incursion into Crimea and make the average Russian feel it financially, we won't hear any complaints about Putin's authoritarianism.
At 3/24/14 05:03 PM, lapis wrote:
The old Latin saying goes: if you want peace, prepare for war ("si vis pacem, para bellum"). The only thing that kept the Cold War from escalating into WW3 was the deterrence of war.
I wouldn't go that far, but I see your point. What the US and the G7 (now that Russia is kicked out of the G8) need to do is promise to back up the Ukrainian military with aid and arms, and press the UN to condemn the invasion and make sure nobody outside of Russia recognizes the annexation of Crimea.
If we do this, does this mean that Russia will exit out of Crimea with its tail between its legs? No. The UN is not nearly powerful enough to stop Russia, and I don't know if the EU and NATO are willing to risk a nuclear war. Just as the world did nothing when coalition forced toppled Saddam, there is little outside of declaring war that the West can do to halt Russia's expansion.
What we need to do is get a UN resolution passed (note: you can get a general resolution passed even with a Russian and Chinese veto) and step up our sanctions big time. We need to also make a military treaty with the Ukraine guaranteeing its territorial integrity, and let Russia know that if they put troops on Ukraine's soil (outside of Crimea) we will intervene. Without using our militaries, we may not be able to get Russia out of Crimea, but we can isolate Russia from the world and make Putin's name mud. We can make this as damaging politically to Russia as Iraq was to us. Maybe more.
In an attempt to give this thread some focus, show us some links that surprised you, or were truly a sign of the times!
Check what Tom has to say about 9/11. It's crazy how this was posted almost 13 years ago.
As much as I love the well thought-out, scholarly debates on here, (mixed in with the usual internet trolls) there is one aspect of the Newgrounds BBS that I think is not used nearly enough.
Newgrounds keeps every single thread that was not deleted. You can still see BBS postings from over 10 years ago. Every. Single. One.
What does this mean? It means that Newgrounds is a time capsule of sorts, capturing public opinion at the current time. It may seem dated now, but back then what they were discussing reflected current trends that did not reflect the common knowledge we have today.
For example, did you know...
It was acceptable on NG to like George W. Bush
Wade Fulp argued in favor of ousting Saddam? (scroll down in the thread)
Barack Obama was viewed as G-d Himself.
It doesn't even have to be political.
Apparently the Nintendo Gamecube was a revolutionary piece of technology.
Apparently Nsync used to be a thing.
Oh my goodness Star Wars III is coming out on DVD!!!
So I'd recommend you take a look at some of the old postings. You may not learn much in terms of current affairs, but it's always good to take a look back at how people thought in the past. Yes, we now know it was stupid to invade Iraq, how how did we not hate Bush immediately after he took office, how could we think the Star Wars prequels were cool? Well, at the time, people actually thought these things. Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight is crap. Just think, someday in the future people will look back at our current political postings and think "wow, that happened so long ago. I can't believe people actually thought XXXX about the Crimean situation," or "Little do these guys know in a week XXXX will happen."
So take a look. You can either click on the drop-down menu and choose to see all topics, or type in the URL bar
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/search/topic/whatever+I+want+to+search
or just type in http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/forum/1/###/a, and replace the ### with whatever number you want. The higher the number, the further back you'll go.
Try it. You never know what you'll find.
It's irritating how Russia will try to paint this like it's the longtime will of the people. Where was this call to merge with Russia when Ukraine was under Yanukovich? It only came as a reaction to Euromaidan. I know that the US is angry at Putin, but seriously, this referendum is spitting in the EU's face.
At this point, military force is not a realistic option. If we hit Russia, Russia is more than capable of hitting back, and while balls to the wall I think the US and the West could defeat Russia, it would be bloody, expensive, and nobody would win. So I think we need to focus on hitting Russia where it hurts: economically, including sanctions, kicking it out of the G8/G20, and trying to revoke its UNSC seat. Russia may not be hurt as much spending-wise or troop casualty wise, but we can make this as diplomatically painful for them as Iraq was to the US.
