The Germans did not believe they were stealing anything, under lebensraum, the Ukraine was their "living space."
Nobody 's talking about Ukraine in here.... Why?
- Thread starter centaurus
- Start date
Gentlemen,
The solution seems simple from a detached long distance. If you are Ukrainian or Russian the reality is far...far more complex.
Okay, this is easy to put forth for us because we have no stake in it, no attachments. But let's think this out theoretically on principle. It seems like a neat solution. Let the Ukrainians have the land where they are the majority and the Russians theirs. Neat and Sweet.
Except that like Israel/Palestine we're dealing with people with ancient attachments, a perception of traditional rights, and very bitter wholesale enmity. None of that is as simple by a long shot as the obvious mathematical logical solution of poppulations. In the living memory of the Ukrainians millions were starved to death and deported. The resentment and hatred was so deep that many Ukrainians supported the Nazis against the Russians. Will the Ukrainians just look at the math and give up the rights to land that was theirs before they were murdered en masse so the Russians could take over. It would be quite understandable if the Ukrainian attitude rejected such pragmatic population mathematics on this issue.
Is Obama to blame for all that Centaurus and Octavian??? Of course you say so.
I think he'd be satisfied with a legacy of gaining back the Russian dominated territory. But for hundreds of years since the mid 1700s the Ukraine was part of the Russian Czarist empire and the old Soviet Union. It's likely there's some lingering desire to take it all back, but I believe the vast majority of Russians would be not see that as realistic or desirable with the grave problems that would continue in the area and around the world if it was all taken.
Look at what we live with all over the world and the cost in lives and trillions of dollars because of this Israel/Palestinian solution. Play it out beyond the Ukraine to the U.S.. What if one day the Latinos who already dominate and are a growing presence throughout the Southwest wanted the same kind of solution. Would Americans so willingly give up California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico?
I would say that's not quite accurate as written. The Nazi doctrine of Lebensraum proposed a takeover was right. The Germans are far from gullible. They've had one of the highest education rates in the world for centuries, which speaks to the gravity of the German desperation in the 1930s that the Nazis could take over. What most Germans likely perceived about "Lebensraum" concerning Russia was a lot closer to knowing that view was just an excuse.
There were about 2 million people of German descent living in southern Russia at the time. Hardly enough on any level to justify displacing 20-30 times that number of others in the area.
Cheers,
Merlot
The solution seems simple from a detached long distance. If you are Ukrainian or Russian the reality is far...far more complex.
Okay, this is easy to put forth for us because we have no stake in it, no attachments. But let's think this out theoretically on principle. It seems like a neat solution. Let the Ukrainians have the land where they are the majority and the Russians theirs. Neat and Sweet.
Except that like Israel/Palestine we're dealing with people with ancient attachments, a perception of traditional rights, and very bitter wholesale enmity. None of that is as simple by a long shot as the obvious mathematical logical solution of poppulations. In the living memory of the Ukrainians millions were starved to death and deported. The resentment and hatred was so deep that many Ukrainians supported the Nazis against the Russians. Will the Ukrainians just look at the math and give up the rights to land that was theirs before they were murdered en masse so the Russians could take over. It would be quite understandable if the Ukrainian attitude rejected such pragmatic population mathematics on this issue.
Is Obama to blame for all that Centaurus and Octavian??? Of course you say so.
I think he'd be satisfied with a legacy of gaining back the Russian dominated territory. But for hundreds of years since the mid 1700s the Ukraine was part of the Russian Czarist empire and the old Soviet Union. It's likely there's some lingering desire to take it all back, but I believe the vast majority of Russians would be not see that as realistic or desirable with the grave problems that would continue in the area and around the world if it was all taken.
Look at what we live with all over the world and the cost in lives and trillions of dollars because of this Israel/Palestinian solution. Play it out beyond the Ukraine to the U.S.. What if one day the Latinos who already dominate and are a growing presence throughout the Southwest wanted the same kind of solution. Would Americans so willingly give up California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico?
I would say that's not quite accurate as written. The Nazi doctrine of Lebensraum proposed a takeover was right. The Germans are far from gullible. They've had one of the highest education rates in the world for centuries, which speaks to the gravity of the German desperation in the 1930s that the Nazis could take over. What most Germans likely perceived about "Lebensraum" concerning Russia was a lot closer to knowing that view was just an excuse.
There were about 2 million people of German descent living in southern Russia at the time. Hardly enough on any level to justify displacing 20-30 times that number of others in the area.
Cheers,
Merlot
Anchor Quits Russia Today, Accuses Network of Whitewashing Putin
An American anchor on Russia Today emotionally resigned on the air:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/russia-news-anchor-resigns/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
She accused her employer of pushing a Putinist agenda and bashing America in its news coverage.
An American anchor on Russia Today emotionally resigned on the air:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/russia-news-anchor-resigns/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
She accused her employer of pushing a Putinist agenda and bashing America in its news coverage.
Nicaragua's leaders were dead-on about Reagan. You hear about Iran-Contra? That was part of Reagan's larger operation for getting money to the Contras, guerrillas who were fighting Nicaragua's government. Reagan wanted that government out and he was doing his level best to get the job done.
You got me, bro. But spin this, will you? 'Hillary compares Putin to Hitler'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...in-after-comparing-crimea-strategy-to-hitler/
Well personally? I'm sort of at a turning point in my life..
I'm half German and half Jamaican my Great Grand Father was in the LSSAH (Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler) and he hated Slavs and Jews. In his notebook he wrote why he chose Canada instead of the United States to flee to... he said because "The United States is infested with venomous Jews." So, he came here still full of hatred (and was arrested) with my grandmother who also hated both. Later in life my Grandmother wasn't as concerned with Jews but still had an extreme hatred of Slavic peoples... She passed this on to my Mother and my Mother passed it on to me.
I have never liked Slavic people, I didn't like them as a kid, I wouldn't "mingle" with them as a teenager, I would not have friends that were or "looked" Slavic... and that has carried right up until now in my adult life.
I will not even see an SP that is Slavic, or looks Slavic.
But watching this on television... is just, sad, and at the same time it made me realize that no Slavic person has ever done anything bad to me personally ...
The hatred that Adolf Hitler conjured up in Germany has gone on for 4 generations in my family...
So it's bad, but, for me... it's an event that has made me think about my own prejudices.
I'm half German and half Jamaican my Great Grand Father was in the LSSAH (Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler) and he hated Slavs and Jews. In his notebook he wrote why he chose Canada instead of the United States to flee to... he said because "The United States is infested with venomous Jews." So, he came here still full of hatred (and was arrested) with my grandmother who also hated both. Later in life my Grandmother wasn't as concerned with Jews but still had an extreme hatred of Slavic peoples... She passed this on to my Mother and my Mother passed it on to me.
I have never liked Slavic people, I didn't like them as a kid, I wouldn't "mingle" with them as a teenager, I would not have friends that were or "looked" Slavic... and that has carried right up until now in my adult life.
I will not even see an SP that is Slavic, or looks Slavic.
But watching this on television... is just, sad, and at the same time it made me realize that no Slavic person has ever done anything bad to me personally ...
The hatred that Adolf Hitler conjured up in Germany has gone on for 4 generations in my family...
So it's bad, but, for me... it's an event that has made me think about my own prejudices.
The American sheeple will believe any crap that the Clinton News Network writes, especially coming from Anderson "cocksucker" Cooper. Just watch one of his famous staged events:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htQ2FE1rlks
America is still better than Russia. Culturally there is no comparison. Yes, America uses propaganda and backstabs allies when it's best for them, but, American culture is superior to Russian culture.
I believe that at times we forget just how much the modern world owes to the United States.
The anchor in question was resigning from RT America, which is run by Russia Today and has nothing to do with CNN or MSNBC. It's run by Putin's government and broacdasts his line.
It's true, reality hits us alongside the head and we learn a few things.
Putin is messing with real people's lives. They're suffering because he wants to play big man.
Give some punk clown asshole an army and you've got a punk clown asshole who is very, very dangerous. That's Putin and it's too bad regular, ordinary people have to pay the price.
Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States, like it or not, and the statements she is making now are being made with her presidency in mind. Although the issues of the Hilary presidency are for another thread, the only Republican with the charisma and talent to defeat her, Chris Christie, has been destroyed by a typical Republican "dirty tricks" scandal (George Washington Bridgegate) and no other candidate appeals to the changing US voter demographic (which the Republican party, with their "let's favor rich stuffed old white caucasian shirts" policies, has not yet figured out). It will be one or two more elections before the Republicans learn the lessons that need to be learned, meanwhile Hillary will be elected the next President and she is already making statements designed to shape her foreign policy agenda.
Hilary is going to be much tougher and more conservative in foreign policy than any of you can imagine, yet she will be a liberal on domestic and social issues.
And this is CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/opinion/speedie-ukraine-far-right/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
So after all Russians were not as paranoid as we initially thought?
Though I usually vote for democrats, there is no way I will vote for Hillary in 2016. She would be more harmful for the country than Bush and Obama combined.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/opinion/speedie-ukraine-far-right/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
So after all Russians were not as paranoid as we initially thought?
Though I usually vote for democrats, there is no way I will vote for Hillary in 2016. She would be more harmful for the country than Bush and Obama combined.
Hillary will be the 45th President of the United States. We should concern ourselves with the realities of what will happen and not wishful thinking. Whether I or you want her to be President is not the issue, the issue is what will actually happen in 2016. I actually think she will be better than her two predecessor Presidents on foreign policy.
The Earth is circling the Sun; this is the fact that will be also valid in 2016. Though, I would not bet my life savings on Hillary, lol. Political life is a turbulent one and unlike her husband she has no charisma and philosophical wisdom to stay afloat in politics on her own. And yes I personally despise her. She is just street-smart, with no own ideas, deep convictions or real intellect as was shown by her term as the Secretary of State…
Don't be surprised if there is a third party that rises up in 2016. A LOT is going to happen between now and 2016, the US economy just might crash before the 2016 elections, the civil unrest that you saw in the Ukraine might migrate over to the US at that time, the second phase of Occupy Wall Street only more violent. The next crash is going to make the 2007 crash seem like a picnic, so get some popcorn and enjoy the show!
I have been waiting for this to happen since 1992. I voted for Ross Perot twice and Ralph Nader once. In truth the concept of their parties were good, but neither one of those guys was the right guy to lead a grass roots 3rd party. With the right leader it could happen.
Here is the latest, Crimea is talking about a referendum on leaving Ukraine and joining Russia. What they probably need to do is draw a line as to where the two new states will be, and tell everyone they have 60 days to move to one side or the other depending on where their sympathies lie:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
It's pretty clear that this is the endgame but let the Crimeans vote on it and then we go from there.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
It's pretty clear that this is the endgame but let the Crimeans vote on it and then we go from there.
Are the ethnic minorities, with their different cultural way of seeing women and which represent a huge part of the Democrats voters, are ready to elect a woman as Président of the USA ?
Yes, the same way a vast white majority was ready to elect a black man President in 2008. Ethnic minorities have no place else to go with their vote. They have never voted for Republicans and they vote Democrat because they are told to do so by their community leaders.
Hillary Clinton also is not viewed as a typical woman. That's because she has a secret pair of testicles hanging between her legs. She is tough as nails and smart as hell.
Elections are also about who delivers federal money to your district. That is what makes Republicans easy targets for accusations of hypocrisy. Even the most conservative Republican knows that federal money coming back in to their Congressional District = reelection, and little or no federal money= defeat. Why do you think Ted Stevens was elected again and again as a Republican senator? Because he hoodwinked his colleagues into approving the most outrageous pork barrel spending in US Congressional history: The Bridge To Nowhere. The most shining example of Republican hypocrisy on federal spending in US Congressional history, bar none, and it came from a Republican and his crooked, filthy cronies.
Well you forgot 1 possibility : the abstention.
She's quite unpleasant and probably hate men (Damn Bill !), but I'm sure the election campaign will make her look like a lovely wife and mother....
She has more character than Obama which will be far better in foregn policy.
Similar threads
- Poll
