Russia has now invaded Ukraine (Putin, illegal, soldiers, regular)
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.
No. You claimed (don't remember the exact number) that 388 votes were required and there were only 368, with nothing backing up your numbers except your own claim. BBC is authoritative. A random poster on a message board is not. Even if so, he ran off to Russia and abandoned his job.
Your links were about the constitution. Again, not about the specific actions taken against Russian speakers.
At the very least, in this post, you were honest - you admitted you do not remember the exact number.
BBC said 328, but as per the Ukrainian constitution's rule that a vote to oust a sitting president contain a minimum of three-fourths of parliament, that would have been 338.
Hint: even Wikipedia has an entry of the # of deputies in the Ukrainian parliament. Take that number and multiply it by 75%. See what number you get and compare that number to the 328 BBC provided vs. the 338 minimum which I cited.
BBC is authoritative?
That's an appeal to authority. That's a fallacy.
Am I saying BBC does nothing but lie? Of course not. But the mere fact a claim was made in an article on BBC's website does not itself prove BBC is "authoritative" and it most certainly does not guarantee BBC was factually correct with that claim.
Journalism is after all a human endeavor, and human beings do make mistakes. This is why newspapers often publish (especially online as a page can be edited at any time) that a previous version of a given article contained information which has upon review been found to have been incorrect.
Your statement that "BBC is authoritative" has no bearing on the actual circumstances of the events at hand, and it certainly is no reflection of what the constitution of Ukraine says.
Furthermore, as has been said here repeatedly, after President Yakunovych was unconstitutionally voted out and the Maidan usurpers took power, the likes of Azov, Svoboda, and Right Sector began to issue threatening edicts aimed at the Russian-speaking/ethnic Russian communities which are plentiful in the eastern part of Ukraine. These edicts contained language warning of repression against the use of the Russian language and of the practice of Russian cultural customs. This too - at least the language part - is a direct violation of Article 10 of the constitution of Ukraine, which I have already hyperlinked here more than once.
"A random poster on a message board is not" - LOL. You sure have no qualms agreeing with posters who like you label views divergent from the "mainstream" as "Russian propaganda." You don't know these posters in person. You don't know what they have or have not read or studied. Yet you're perfectly fine agreeing with these "random posters on a message board."
The truth is that in any and every discussion about whatever subject, whether it's the Russian special military operation or automobiles or Japanese history or what not, people who have studied the given subject make their knowledge clear by showing what they know. They may not know every single fact there is about the given subject, but people on this thread (and others on C-D) have most certainly "done their homework" and read much on a variety of topics.
Your subjective qualification of what I write as a "random poster on a message board" not being "authoritative" the way you claim BBC is is likewise a fallacy.
I knew, for example, the 3/4 rule re: the ousting of a sitting Ukrainian president. You didn't. It took me a mere few minutes to find English and Ukrainian texts of the said constitution. You insisted I showed no links. And, it took me a few seconds to find a Wikipedia entry (again, of all places, Wikipedia! LOL) which shows the # of deputies in Ukraine's parliament.
Have you ever even looked up the # of deputies that Ukraine's parliament has? Did you even ever bother comparing what 75% of that number was to what BBC said?
Or do you simply prefer to believe whatever you're told and to then write "BBC is authoritative?"
It is clear you are not in a position to qualify anything as "authoritative" or not. Again, you really should stop here and you would make a more efficient and prudent use of your time by becoming acquainted with the germane facts rather than throwing self-righteous accusations at "random posters on a message board" whom you disagree with and who have actually made an effort to learn the facts at hand.
I'm not trying to make you feel stupid, but the things you write repeatedly reveal the mindset of a poster who doesn't know as much as he acts as he does.
Last edited by Sprawling_Homeowner; 05-19-2022 at 03:55 PM..
I resist digging up old posts or previously cited material when new people come along; when the same poster wants a repeat then that is a total time waste. Still, global search does work and since I can't recall the details myself ... curiosity made me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
The Maxar images were manipulated. They compared two images, claiming one of them was from mid-March, when in reality it was taken on April 1, specifically at 11:57am GMT.
This assertion per what you first told me came from a German website that only said "Turkish experts" uncovered the so-called manipulation. Its sourcing went back to a Turkish newspaper (once Communist and banned for a while) but now resurrected. I responded that the paper clearly has "ideological views" for it refers to the Ukronazi. Here's a google translate of the apparent original assertion:
Quote: Independent researchers found significant gaps in satellite images that trashed the NYT's claims. First of all, Maxar's satellite passed over the region on February 28 and April 1, not March 9-11. In other words, on March 9-11, the satellite was in a completely different coordinate. It was also confirmed by meteorological data that the satellite image of NYT belongs to April 1, not March. Because the torrential rain that continued in the region from March 31 to April 1 was reflected in the images as sandy alluvium. On the other hand, NYT wrote that in another image, the shadows on February 28 and the shadows on March 19 are exactly the same. However, it turned out that the shadows on February 28 were the same as those on April 1. Based on the Sun's tilt angle above the horizon, the SunCalc program determined the exact time of the image and the direction of the shadows. Accordingly, in the satellite image published by NYT, the sun angle is 42 degrees. This shows that the image is from 11:57 GMT on April 1st. That is, 2 days after the Russians left the city.
From what I can tell, 'someone' at this paper that propagandizes for terrorist organizations had 'someone' (named only as an "independent researcher") run a SunCalc program and made an assertion that got picked up by your German site who turned that unnamed 'someone' into Turkish experts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And it matches the eyewitness accounts who said that there were no corpses in the streets when the Russians left Bucha, but two days later they had popped up all of a sudden. Even the Ukrainian police made a video as they drove through the streets of Bucha right after the Russians had left. They published their video on the Internet, there were no corpses on it. That police team was the first, only the next day did the Ukrainian secret service arrive in Bucha and a little later the corpses started to pop up.
The evidence for a fake is overwhelming. I can provide it here if you wish, videos, eyewitness accounts etc.
Please don't. We've already had this discussion too.
I am not a war hawk, I think the US defense budget has been bloated for decades and should be reduced as much as possible. The military-industrial complex has been a serious danger to our democracy. I am not happy about this war.
Even I know the US has not wanted a fight with Russia for any reason. Especially since they gave up communism and central economic planning. Russia has a free market now, and the USA has no territorial ambitions on Russia. We don't have to conquer something that we can buy on the freely open market.
The USA is not and has never been afraid of competition. If Russia can make better horse shoes (or anything else), you better believe that American companies will buy them, even setting up the factories and warehouses for it.
The best possible arrangement the US can make with Russia is to conduct business with them, everyone knows that.
Russia, on the other hand, has had real territorial expansion goals since the Soviet breakup. That is why the European Union and NATO are a serious problem for Putin. He can't pursue the expansionist agenda with a big strong EU in his way. He can't get the Baltic states, for instance, until he breaks up NATO. He can't get Poland until he breaks up NATO.
That is the motive for interfering in elections and fiddling with European infrastructure, encouraging nationalism to break up NATO and the EU and promoting political movements that injure democracy.
It has always been about neutering resistance to his expansionist goals. Your posts are a great example of how this propaganda effort has worked out for him.
Putin has been the aggressor here. That has been his MO from the beginning.
You don't know your own country and government. Its foreign policy is guided by the Rand corporation, the MIC, etc. The Rand corporation has produced various strategy models, openly discussing how to destroy Russia. You should read that stuff before you come here and claim the US doesn't want a conflict with Russia.
Russia is not expansionist at all. The EU is not a problem for Russia at all, either. Russia has been happily dealing with Europe for many years. Everyone was fine with the way it was, until the US started to radicalize Eastern Europe and create a conflict with Russia in order to split Eurasia, the US goal for more than a century.
Nato is a very different story. Again, you don't know how Nato ticks. Nato is expansionist. Nato is actually based on a Nazi foundation.
Your whole idea that Russia wants to "get" Poland or Baltic states is ludicrous. They have nothing Russia doesn't have. Russia has enough problem settling its own giant territory.
I do not consider the invasion a monstrosity at all. While I am against violence, Ukraine was asking for it when it conducted its 8-year civil war against Russian-speakers in Donbass and Crimea.
Ukraine was "asking for it." At some point, my day is worse from having read certain words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
It's like calling the liberation of Nazi Germany and Jews a monstrosity and siding with German Nazis 80 years ago.
Not going there. Shame you had to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Russian tech is fine.
Russian tech is sooooo good that Ukrainians using Russian-made phones (or any other manufacturer) can do 'naughty' things with them that will make a Russian occupation more difficult had cell phones never been invented.
Before you twist that - you're the one who brought up cell phones saying Russians let most keep theirs, with my then observing new technologies alter the nature of conflict - be that new weapons or a simple cell phone.
Finally, you join the other 3 and try insults when nothing else works. So you had the same propaganda trainer as the other 3.
If you want to be ignored, that is a technique. I put Erasure on ignore, but not until she justified the murder of the 22,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Forest and Stalin's invasions of Poland and Finland and starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the 30s. You can't argue with someone who displays no moral compass. And I find her justification of those indescribably disgusting, much like neo-Nazis who would try to justify the holocaust.
You added this.
You are in no position to speak of insults when you repeatedly call what I write "propaganda," all the more when you don't know the facts.
I couldn't care less if you put me on ignore. But I would hope you do so after reading the lengthy post I wrote to you. You will learn something if you read it, because your posts on the Ukrainian constitution and the vote to kick out President Yakunovych demonstrate you don't know (or at least up to now did not know) what the factors and facts were.
The Russians are very nice to civilians. Even the Pentagon admitted that Russia is going out of its way not to hurt civilians.
Think about it: what kind of war is that when civilians can stroll in the park with their children, use their smartphones etc. in most of the country?! Russia could have stopped all that from the start, but never did...
Nonsense.
The only way Russia could have "stopped all that from the start" is by nuclear attacks...
Russia did what they could with their "conventional", non nuclear missiles...
Russia was not very nice to civilians....they lobbed missiles deliberately into
civilian apartments, schools, churches, shopping centers....
...Russia targeted Ukrainian civilians more than the Ukrainian military.
I don't think Russia "went out of its way" not to hurt civilians....nonsense.
You don't know your own country and government....
Spare us the tinfoil hat rant.
You write as if you are young and only recently learned these things. You act as if this is some sort of revelation LOL!
Of course, big corporations control the USA. They have a disproportionate influence over our government, they have our politicians in their own pockets.
That is why we need election reform, and a constitutional amendment to end the influence of big dark money in our government.
But at the end of the day, to quote Calvin Coolidge (not long before the great stock market crash) “The business of America is business!”
It's not about attacking Russia without cause, it is about making money. Trade deals with countries like Russia are far less costly and more profitable than wars.
The big reason the Soviet Union was viewed as a threat to the USA (and the Rand Corporation) in the Cold War era was because it was hostile to American business interests. The same is not true today.
If Putin was an honest man and a leader dedicated to the best interests of his people, he would not have started this war, he would have promoted trade and made nice with the neighbors.
Instead he put the interests of his kleptocracy first, not of his people first, and now the poor unfortunate bastards are dying on the fields of Ukraine.
1. you said BBC said the vote to oust President Yakunovych was constitutional and said my claim it wasn't was propaganda.
2. I quoted the constitution of Ukraine (3/4s of parliament must vote plus constitutional court review; neither happened) to show you were wrong.
3. You go off on random rants and say I don't provide links when I provided TWO hyperlinks.
Really, stop embarrassing yourself. You act as if you know things when you don't. Erasure already pointed that out. I'm beginning to pity you (even though you do make me chuckle aplenty).
I haven't been following this and really don't want to. However, my recollection is Yanukyovch was 'fired' (although the word impeached commonly is used, and perhaps here it amounts to the same) for being a runaway president. What might be relevant is not the constitutional language on impeachment but what happened. The first google hit was behind a paywall (WaPo). This is the second:
Quote:
The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7. It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91. The speaker of the Rada signed the resolution, again in accordance with the constitution (Article 88/3). https://www.ponarseurasia.org/was-ya...onstitutional/
Know no more than that. Not vouching for the site nor the content. Or the then-constitutionality of this action. My only observation is: much is complicated. I do recall, however, that Yanukyovch maintained he could continue to fulfill his constitutional duties as president of Ukraine while living in Moscow.
I haven't been following this and really don't want to. However, my recollection is Yanukyovch was 'fired' (although the word impeached commonly is used, and perhaps here it amounts to the same) for being a runaway president. What might be relevant is not the constitutional language on impeachment but what happened. The first google hit was behind a paywall (WaPo). This is the second:
Know no more than that. Not vouching for the site nor the content. Or the then-constitutionality of this action. My only observation is: much is complicated. I do recall, however, that Yanukyovch maintained he could continue to fulfill his constitutional duties as president of Ukraine while living in Moscow.
Much is not complicated. It's very simple.
He was voted out with 328 votes from the parliament, which has 450 deputies.
Article 10 of the constitution mandates a minimum of three-fourths of deputies voting in favor plus a review by the constitutional court, and neither occurred.
Three-fourths of 450 is 337.5 - which means, as I told the poster above several days ago, that a minimum of 338 votes in favor of ousting the sitting president is required.
President Yanukovych's ouster was illegal and unconstitutional.
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.
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.
