Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine - Page 115

Sbygneus · 10-02-14, 02:09 AM

ikalugin,
I really pity this man, believe me. I can imagine his feelings probably even better than you as I have kids myself. (judging by your young look on the photo you dont have children?)
Everyday I watch tv my heart sinks. Why in 21st century Europe people are shooting each other? It really doesnt matter who started. Its our responsibility to protect oldies and kids. This is about reality and death. Responsible civilised people know that there is no such thing like bad peace or good war.
Dont be fooled by politicians. They want us to hurt each other, while they are sitting in safety counting money.
I understand Russians better then most of our western collegues here. I speak and read Russian well enough. I studied it. I know Russian literature very good. I read and watch Russian news very often.
But war is NEVER an option. Didnt we suffer enough in Eastern Europe?

ikalugin · 10-02-14, 05:30 AM

Although I do agree with the old wisdom of "bad peace is better than a good war", many would think that life of the people in the sense of the culture/historical heritage is just as important as their physical/biological existance.

Oberon · 10-02-14, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sbygneus

But war is NEVER an option. Didnt we suffer enough in Eastern Europe?

Seconding this, particularly in light of todays 70th anniversary.

Skybird · 10-02-14, 06:04 AM

Pacifism-no-matter-what, is no alternative either.

Maybe one could agree to this: wars of aggression should not be seen as an ethical option.

However, for some they are.

The problem is this: you cannot mandatorily make anyone submitting to your game rule of "peace". But you can make everyone needing to play by your game rule of "war".

Sbygneus · 10-02-14, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Pacifism-no-matter-what, is no alternative either.

Maybe one could agree to this: wars of aggression should not be seen as an ethical option.

However, for some they are.

The problem is this: you cannot mandatorily make anyone submitting to your game rule of "peace". But you can make everyone needing to play by your game rule of "war".

I am not a pacifist-no-matter-what. I know what is self preservation. But the flags, political speaches, or so called national philosophies would never make me shoot a man I dont even know.
In almost every case people can reconsider their aggressive behaviour.
Its just how I understand my sovereignty. The enemy is the one who is trying to harm my (and my kin's) right to existence. Then I will fight to the death.

ikalugin · 10-02-14, 07:04 AM

What about cultural identity?

Ie should the objective of the enemy be not to destroy the population physically, but to enforce a different culture, values and so on onto them?

An examples of this would be religious (Islam) or ideological (post modernistic revolution) conversion.

Sbygneus · 10-02-14, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Although I do agree with the old wisdom of "bad peace is better than a good war", many would think that life of the people in the sense of the culture/historical heritage is just as important as their physical/biological existance.

I wonder if this separatist now thinks the same...
I also value culture/historical heritage, but wouldnt sacrify my relative lives form them. There is no need for it. If we live, we can always hope to preserve our values somehow. Killing people is rather no way out option.

Catfish · 10-04-14, 01:47 PM

Quite good arguments, only in german (anyone?)

The US idea of "Full spectrum dominance", or why Russia has to be the enemy:

I wonder if such stuff is ever published, in the anglo-saxon world ?

Dread Knot · 10-04-14, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

I wonder if such stuff is ever published, in the anglo-saxon world ?

I'm sure somebody keeps an ear out for it.

Catfish · 10-04-14, 02:11 PM

Good cartoon, and nice diversion.

But i meant published, made accessible for the public/population, not the NSA

ikalugin · 10-04-14, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Quite good arguments, only in german (anyone?)

The US idea of "Full spectrum dominance", or why Russia has to be the enemy:

I wonder if such stuff is ever published, in the anglo-saxon world ?

Well it is either Russia, China or faceless "terrorists".

Catfish · 10-04-14, 03:27 PM

I had high hopes, that after 1989, the reunification, and the fall of the soviet regime, there would be some negotiations, understanding and combined work to make the nations of the former soviet block a real partner of the world, and (second) of the EU. The 'Petersburger Dialog' sure was and is a milestone. The former soviet satellites already used marketing and developed to capitalist states, with all pros and cons.

God knows Russia asked often enough for partnership, but due to NATO treaties and our west-fixated marionette government there never was a chance. The anglo-saxon "reluctance" to put this mildly (aggression and domination would be better words) and our treaties hindered that. The US s. service expression "Full spectrum dominance", as ridiculous as it sounds, says it all.

The idea of some nations to sell oil and gas without Dollar currency (the 'petro-dollar'), usually soon put an end to those nations. But they could not do the same to Russia, with its new St. Peterburg stock exchange. China is now paying for oil and gas in Yen, and the US sure does not like it.
Also, NATO needs an enemy, and a real unification of Europe is not wanted. Despite all lip service and complaints why the EU does not really unite, they are indeed quite happy with the status quo.

Of course, a real unified EU alone, let alone with Russia at its side, would have meant major competition, and by all means and capitalist theories, by all lip service, real competition is not really liked – a peaceful hegemony is what is wanted. Total dominance, everywhere. Economically and militarily. Remember Russia has the resources, for the future.

The silence of the anglo-saxon countries regarding Snowden, Assange, Nato, economical warfare and eavesdropping of what they call their "friends" speaks volumes.

Skybird · 10-04-14, 03:47 PM

I recommend to read Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard. American Primarity and its Geostrategic Imperatives, from 1997. German translation 1999 under the titel: Die einzige Weltmacht. Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft.

Divide et Impera always has been a way of America to secure its influence in post-war Europe, and later in the EU. I cannot even completely blame it for that, America is an empire, though many Americans deny that, but technically it is, saying that without any moral judgement of the term "empire". And empires cannot afford not to act, they must act. And so America plays the game by the efficient rules that see through its strategic goal of keeping Russia away from and itself in Europe. To claim it only is about keeping away an aggressive Russia, is only one half of the truth. It is about keeping away a peaceful Russia as well. The chances for closer ties were there, after the Yeltzin years and during the early phase of Putin's reign. In Putin's early years he wanted a closing of ties between Russia and Europe. He made the bill without Washington that of course torpedoed these ambitions in several ways. Today, however, there seems to be no way back.

Catfish · 10-04-14, 04:03 PM

Of course, is the US an empire.
But do not forget the British Empire, and its satraps. Its former colonies have forgotten all about what it was like, to become and be a colony. When their dominion calls, they come. History is not their strong side

Oberon · 10-04-14, 05:01 PM

I think only Australia and Canada come when asked these days, and that's out of friendship more than it is out of the fact that they were colonies of ours.
After all, I don't recall India, Pakistan, South Africa, Malaya, Zimbabwe, the Bahamas or Fiji sending any troops to Iraq or Afghanistan lately...

In fact, you might want to do some map comparisons:

Here is a map of forces that provided support to our conflict in Iraq

And here is a map of the British Empire and its colonies

Ok, but what about a solely British war then? Well, the last one that I can think of that didn't involve the UN was the Falklands war...here's a map of the participants in that:

And before that was mainly just the skirmishes involved in withdrawing from Africa.

But of course, as you say "When their dominion calls, they come"...

Still waiting for them...

10-02-14, 06:04 AM	#1714
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,727 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Pacifism-no-matter-what, is no alternative either. Maybe one could agree to this: wars of aggression should not be seen as an ethical option. However, for some they are. The problem is this: you cannot mandatorily make anyone submitting to your game rule of "peace". But you can make everyone needing to play by your game rule of "war". __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-04-14, 01:47 PM	#1718
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,806 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Quite good arguments, only in german (anyone?) The US idea of "Full spectrum dominance", or why Russia has to be the enemy: I wonder if such stuff is ever published, in the anglo-saxon world ? Last edited by Catfish; 10-05-14 at 10:06 AM.

10-04-14, 03:27 PM	#1722
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,806 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	I had high hopes, that after 1989, the reunification, and the fall of the soviet regime, there would be some negotiations, understanding and combined work to make the nations of the former soviet block a real partner of the world, and (second) of the EU. The 'Petersburger Dialog' sure was and is a milestone. The former soviet satellites already used marketing and developed to capitalist states, with all pros and cons. God knows Russia asked often enough for partnership, but due to NATO treaties and our west-fixated marionette government there never was a chance. The anglo-saxon "reluctance" to put this mildly (aggression and domination would be better words) and our treaties hindered that. The US s. service expression "Full spectrum dominance", as ridiculous as it sounds, says it all. The idea of some nations to sell oil and gas without Dollar currency (the 'petro-dollar'), usually soon put an end to those nations. But they could not do the same to Russia, with its new St. Peterburg stock exchange. China is now paying for oil and gas in Yen, and the US sure does not like it. Also, NATO needs an enemy, and a real unification of Europe is not wanted. Despite all lip service and complaints why the EU does not really unite, they are indeed quite happy with the status quo. Of course, a real unified EU alone, let alone with Russia at its side, would have meant major competition, and by all means and capitalist theories, by all lip service, real competition is not really liked – a peaceful hegemony is what is wanted. Total dominance, everywhere. Economically and militarily. Remember Russia has the resources, for the future. The silence of the anglo-saxon countries regarding Snowden, Assange, Nato, economical warfare and eavesdropping of what they call their "friends" speaks volumes. Last edited by Catfish; 10-04-14 at 04:09 PM.

10-04-14, 03:47 PM	#1723
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,727 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I recommend to read Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard. American Primarity and its Geostrategic Imperatives, from 1997. German translation 1999 under the titel: Die einzige Weltmacht. Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft. Divide et Impera always has been a way of America to secure its influence in post-war Europe, and later in the EU. I cannot even completely blame it for that, America is an empire, though many Americans deny that, but technically it is, saying that without any moral judgement of the term "empire". And empires cannot afford not to act, they must act. And so America plays the game by the efficient rules that see through its strategic goal of keeping Russia away from and itself in Europe. To claim it only is about keeping away an aggressive Russia, is only one half of the truth. It is about keeping away a peaceful Russia as well. The chances for closer ties were there, after the Yeltzin years and during the early phase of Putin's reign. In Putin's early years he wanted a closing of ties between Russia and Europe. He made the bill without Washington that of course torpedoed these ambitions in several ways. Today, however, there seems to be no way back. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-02-14, 02:09 AM	#1711
Sbygneus Electrician's Mate Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 137 Downloads: 190 Uploads: 0	ikalugin, I really pity this man, believe me. I can imagine his feelings probably even better than you as I have kids myself. (judging by your young look on the photo you dont have children?) Everyday I watch tv my heart sinks. Why in 21st century Europe people are shooting each other? It really doesnt matter who started. Its our responsibility to protect oldies and kids. This is about reality and death. Responsible civilised people know that there is no such thing like bad peace or good war. Dont be fooled by politicians. They want us to hurt each other, while they are sitting in safety counting money. I understand Russians better then most of our western collegues here. I speak and read Russian well enough. I studied it. I know Russian literature very good. I read and watch Russian news very often. But war is NEVER an option. Didnt we suffer enough in Eastern Europe?

10-02-14, 05:30 AM	#1712
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Although I do agree with the old wisdom of "bad peace is better than a good war", many would think that life of the people in the sense of the culture/historical heritage is just as important as their physical/biological existance.

10-02-14, 07:04 AM	#1716
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	What about cultural identity? Ie should the objective of the enemy be not to destroy the population physically, but to enforce a different culture, values and so on onto them? An examples of this would be religious (Islam) or ideological (post modernistic revolution) conversion.

10-04-14, 02:11 PM	#1720
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,806 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Good cartoon, and nice diversion. But i meant published, made accessible for the public/population, not the NSA

10-04-14, 04:03 PM	#1724
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,806 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Of course, is the US an empire. But do not forget the British Empire, and its satraps. Its former colonies have forgotten all about what it was like, to become and be a colony. When their dominion calls, they come. History is not their strong side

10-04-14, 05:01 PM	#1725
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	I think only Australia and Canada come when asked these days, and that's out of friendship more than it is out of the fact that they were colonies of ours. After all, I don't recall India, Pakistan, South Africa, Malaya, Zimbabwe, the Bahamas or Fiji sending any troops to Iraq or Afghanistan lately... In fact, you might want to do some map comparisons: Here is a map of forces that provided support to our conflict in Iraq And here is a map of the British Empire and its colonies Ok, but what about a solely British war then? Well, the last one that I can think of that didn't involve the UN was the Falklands war...here's a map of the participants in that: And before that was mainly just the skirmishes involved in withdrawing from Africa. But of course, as you say "When their dominion calls, they come"... Still waiting for them...