Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-11-2014, 03:21 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,913,813 times
Reputation: 1119

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
It's quite possible that Ukraine topples the entire house of cards in Europe if they don't weasel out of their promises of big money.

Putin doesn't need to do anything more. He can just sit back with some popcorn and watch the show. He' ll have the Ukraine entire in a few years.
All the sides here are pushing for the new IMF governance reforms and are trying to expedite it. BRICs and US. Global governance has been the direction, but this is clearly being used to speed things up. The 2010 reforms are going to be huge and are little discussed. China is the biggest bubble.

EU delays bond issue over Ukraine, ratings review | Top News | IFRe
quote:
The €2.6bn bond sale, expected to be in a 10-year or 15-year maturity, was scheduled to be executed next week, but the EU has now indicated to banks that it will come after Moody’s rating decision on the supranational, which is due to be announced next Friday.

“If this financial support is confirmed, the funding plan for 2014 will be adequately updated but, in any case, will not influence substantially the level of EU debt outstanding,” the EU wrote in an email to bankers who had received a request for proposals for the upcoming bond issue late last week.

 
Old 03-11-2014, 03:42 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,913,813 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
I actually have heard it reported over and over again...not sure what media sources you pay attention to - obviously they do a poor job on this.

In fact Sevastopol's harbor is one of the principle reasons for Russia to want Crimea.

However, surely, you don't think ALL of those thousands of troops and tanks, and military trucks were already there and just grew in reported numbers by coincidence?

Russia did send forces in to Crimea and we knew about it a week in advance before Putin made the move.
I read a large variety of news sources. However, the narrative has been fairly painted in the MSM. I have stated that much is not being clearly reported there. I have seen reports of unmarked troops with pictures, seen Putin claimed militias, early on. The fleet alone is reported to be 11,000 by wiki. The numbers and details on those bases has not been widely reported in the MSM. Discussing Sevastopol's harbor would have to be discussed, but still not giving details on the other bases, troops or background. So you have seen a multitude of articles discussing the amt of "Russian" troops that were there previously? Want Crimea? They have already been there for ages. Of course they "want" it.

How do you know the numbers grew? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Even if they did, still doesn't give one a clear idea of what is happening. Moving troops would, of course be normal to do. I have seen nothing, but conflicting and poorly detailed information in regards to this issue. There is a large effort to draw lines between "russian" and "ukraine", as well. Like "Russia" storming "Ukraine" bases, etc... These are clear choices of word bias that do not necessarily reflect what is actually happening there. Articles discussing militias, call them pro-russian. Since when were they not "pro-russian"?

It amazes me that so many people are always so sure they know exactly what is going on in another country. Based on what?

Last edited by CDusr; 03-11-2014 at 03:52 PM..
 
Old 03-11-2014, 04:43 PM
 
26,324 posts, read 14,928,570 times
Reputation: 14502
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
I read a large variety of news sources. However, the narrative has been fairly painted in the MSM. I have stated that much is not being clearly reported there. I have seen reports of unmarked troops with pictures, seen Putin claimed militias, early on. The fleet alone is reported to be 11,000 by wiki. The numbers and details on those bases has not been widely reported in the MSM. Discussing Sevastopol's harbor would have to be discussed, but still not giving details on the other bases, troops or background. So you have seen a multitude of articles discussing the amt of "Russian" troops that were there previously? Want Crimea? They have already been there for ages. Of course they "want" it.

How do you know the numbers grew? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Even if they did, still doesn't give one a clear idea of what is happening. Moving troops would, of course be normal to do. I have seen nothing, but conflicting and poorly detailed information in regards to this issue. There is a large effort to draw lines between "russian" and "ukraine", as well. Like "Russia" storming "Ukraine" bases, etc... These are clear choices of word bias that do not necessarily reflect what is actually happening there. Articles discussing militias, call them pro-russian. Since when were they not "pro-russian"?

It amazes me that so many people are always so sure they know exactly what is going on in another country. Based on what?
I think you listen to extremely poor media and/or only one media source based on what you are saying.

No one is claiming they know exactly what is going on on the ground - my post that you replied to illustrates that point.

As a Barack O'Breezey supporter, I think you are a bit too sensitive to the point that was made that we knew that Russia was going to send in troops a week before it happened. Either communication between departments failed (like it has in past administrations) OR our public officials spread some misinformation about what they knew for strategic purposes - if that was the case - what could we have done differently if anything?

P.S. The 11,000 Russian military personnel in the Black Sea Fleet includes people on nearby bases EVERYWHERE in the Crimea and sailors on boats at sea...some sources are now reporting 30,000+ Russian soldiers on the ground.
 
Old 03-11-2014, 05:03 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,913,813 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
I think you listen to extremely poor media and/or only one media source based on what you are saying.

No one is claiming they know exactly what is going on on the ground - my post that you replied to illustrates that point.

As a Barack O'Breezey supporter, I think you are a bit too sensitive to the point that was made that we knew that Russia was going to send in troops a week before it happened. Either communication between departments failed (like it has in past administrations) OR our public officials spread some misinformation about what they knew for strategic purposes - if that was the case - what could we have done differently if anything?

P.S. The 11,000 Russian military personnel in the Black Sea Fleet includes people on nearby bases EVERYWHERE in the Crimea and sailors on boats at sea...some sources are now reporting 30,000+ Russian soldiers on the ground.
Well one is welcome to make assumptions based on limited information. Each to their own. IMO details matter.

How was my post interpreted as sensitivity to reports of Russia sending troops? There is a difference between sending troops and invading. You seem fairly certain of what you are claiming without firsthand knowledge. BO, supporter? Really? So this is about BO?

One would assume that the 11,000 figure, if current and correct does indeed include what is considered the "Fleet". However, that still is not detailed information of troops, much less militas, in this area. It is also an assumption.
 
Old 03-11-2014, 05:28 PM
 
9,961 posts, read 17,471,207 times
Reputation: 9193
Cri-me-a river, Russia...
 
Old 03-11-2014, 11:52 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,913,813 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I saw that as well. They want some other country to come in and fight for them.
The news seems more propaganda than news coming from there with Russia ready to bomb them any minute.

This coup was planned and staged by outside forces/money.
Aside from the IMF governance reforms, there is this also.
Ukraine signs $10 billion shale gas deal with Chevron

quote:
"The agreements with Shell and Chevron ... will enable us to have full sufficiency in gas by 2020 and, under an optimistic scenario, even enable us to export energy," President Viktor Yanukovich told investors shortly before the signing.


IMF 'impressed' with Ukraine commitment to reform - The ...
quote:
The International Monetary Fund said Friday it viewed the new government in Ukraine as committed to undertaking needed reforms in exchange for aid
.....
The IMF, the United States and European powers have said it needs to commit to deep reforms, including hiking heavily subsidized energy prices, in order to gain a financial support package.


They are still trying to get the reforms accelerated.
Senate Ukraine Draft Measure Said to Include IMF Change ...
quote:
Still, the committee delayed its planned consideration of the measure from tomorrow until March 12. “The IMF is the hangup” to an agreement on the measure, said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.
“We are short-sighted as Republicans not to understand” that the IMF “is a tool available to the world community to reinforce good behavior and deter bad behavior,” said Graham, who isn’t a member of the Foreign Relations panel.
....
The IMF assistance was requested by President Barack Obama and the Treasury Department
 
Old 03-12-2014, 03:25 PM
 
26,324 posts, read 14,928,570 times
Reputation: 14502
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
Well one is welcome to make assumptions based on limited information. Each to their own. IMO details matter.

How was my post interpreted as sensitivity to reports of Russia sending troops? There is a difference between sending troops and invading. You seem fairly certain of what you are claiming without firsthand knowledge. BO, supporter? Really? So this is about BO?

One would assume that the 11,000 figure, if current and correct does indeed include what is considered the "Fleet". However, that still is not detailed information of troops, much less militas, in this area. It is also an assumption.
You were defensive about Barack OBreezey when I didn't mention him specifically.

I suppose you are correct, it is possible that a US general with access to the information went on CNN and LIED about what the US knew and when for whatever reason.

I however, think it is far more likely that he was being honest - that we were able to pick up on rumblings, messages, and the like in Russia and knew that it was going to happen beforehand. If that is the case - then my question is 100% legitimate: Are our branches of government not communicating well, since our public officials indicated the opposite? Or, if the public officials mislead to keep their hand hidden, did we play the best possible hand with this information present?

I think it is very naive to suggest that Russia hasn't moved troops into Crimea since this Ukrainian mess began.
 
Old 03-12-2014, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,288,091 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
You were defensive about Barack OBreezey when I didn't mention him specifically.

I suppose you are correct, it is possible that a US general with access to the information went on CNN and LIED about what the US knew and when for whatever reason.

I however, think it is far more likely that he was being honest - that we were able to pick up on rumblings, messages, and the like in Russia and knew that it was going to happen beforehand. If that is the case - then my question is 100% legitimate: Are our branches of government not communicating well, since our public officials indicated the opposite? Or, if the public officials mislead to keep their hand hidden, did we play the best possible hand with this information present?

I think it is very naive to suggest that Russia hasn't moved troops into Crimea since this Ukrainian mess began.
This is no different than Benghazi or the Boston bombers.
The WH says they didn't know beforehand.

Billions spent spying and listening to the world and they didn't know.
They know who Merkel calls and probably what she had for breakfast but when it comes to global events..they don't know.
 
Old 03-12-2014, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,288,091 times
Reputation: 27718
I suspect they were going to allow Russia to take Crimea because if they didn't then that surely would be war.

It's working out just a little too perfectly for the IMF here. This is what they wanted all along.
 
Old 03-12-2014, 03:53 PM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,518,203 times
Reputation: 6392
I don't think Oblabla thought Putin would take Crimea in response. He's totally unable to think things through.

He's also got a hard on for Putin. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he threatens to install nukes in Ukraine next week.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top