my guess is you are being sarcastic but again, history shows that splitting a (divided) country is often for the better, at least, and that's the point, if it happens relatively in peace. Slovakia and Czechs split and both were better off. The countries of former Yugoslavia that split with relative peace (Macedonia, Slovenia to a degree, Montenegro) are also all better off. Spain would be better off. Scotland separated from the UK would be better off. The idea of nations is at times very arbitrary, and it's a concept that only started early 19th century. even Ukraine as it is today didn't exist 200 years ago. You had a Austro-Hungarian dominated part around Galicia, Kyiv empire, Crimea and whatever else. Before that large parts were dominated by Lithunia etc. and so on. National borders don't make sense almost anywhere in the world and not in Europe either. (Not to say that we don't need borders or whatever, but they are not set in stone)
So who says that Ukraine has to exist in this way and shape until the end of years?
That's all far fetched however as the tensions in the country are far from an end of the road status, but the idea that it would be the worst thing ever for them to split the country up, is by far not a given.
So who says that Ukraine has to exist in this way and shape until the end of years?
That's all far fetched however as the tensions in the country are far from an end of the road status, but the idea that it would be the worst thing ever for them to split the country up, is by far not a given.
ok...so you were just trolling...here's what I wrote
Did B&H split peacefully from Yugoslavia? No (and neither Croatia. It took Croatia a long time to do well but they have tourism and the support of the EU.)
Did Macedonia and Montenegro split peacefully? Yes (both countries doing fine)
Did Slovenia split peacefully? There was just a week of war in Slovenia. (Doing fine as well)
Do you understand English or European history? Apparently not.
Is it possible to discuss any issue with you? Apparently neither.
Since you mentioned Bosnia Herzegovina...Bosnia Herzegovina is doing worst from all former Yugoslavic countries in terms of everything but football. The reason is also very simple...it's because Bosnia is not really a country with any purpose and sense of identity. It was put together in Dayton and no one knows why. The Croats don't care about Bosnia but about Croatia, the Serbs live in Republika Srpska and couldn't give two shits, the Muslims feel like Bosnians, but if you told them tomorrow that they would be part of Greater Turkey from tomorrow on, they wouldn't mind either. As said, it would be a good start to study European history and read 2 or 3 articles about Europe...although understanding plain English would be helpful too.
Did B&H split peacefully from Yugoslavia? No (and neither Croatia. It took Croatia a long time to do well but they have tourism and the support of the EU.)
Did Macedonia and Montenegro split peacefully? Yes (both countries doing fine)
Did Slovenia split peacefully? There was just a week of war in Slovenia. (Doing fine as well)
Do you understand English or European history? Apparently not.
Is it possible to discuss any issue with you? Apparently neither.
Since you mentioned Bosnia Herzegovina...Bosnia Herzegovina is doing worst from all former Yugoslavic countries in terms of everything but football. The reason is also very simple...it's because Bosnia is not really a country with any purpose and sense of identity. It was put together in Dayton and no one knows why. The Croats don't care about Bosnia but about Croatia, the Serbs live in Republika Srpska and couldn't give two shits, the Muslims feel like Bosnians, but if you told them tomorrow that they would be part of Greater Turkey from tomorrow on, they wouldn't mind either. As said, it would be a good start to study European history and read 2 or 3 articles about Europe...although understanding plain English would be helpful too.
Last edited:
what you are saying is like catching hep C is safe if you don't get cirrhosis, drinking and driving is safe if it happens without an accident, IV drugs are safe if you don't get HIV, wars are safe if nobody gets killed, crooks are safe if they don't eat you alive,...But guess what? ....
You were always an arrogant kid with little flexibility in your thinking, but I have never seen you dumb to this low. What a stupid example is your choice! Remind you that the country that went through the split consisted of other nations as well, one of them B&H. It is needless to say what happened there. You can't just cherry pick some and hide under the carpet some other parts of the index country to prove your idea.
And this is your English masterpiece: "history shows that splitting a (divided) country is often for the better, at least, and that's the point, if it happens relatively in peace". You be the judge yourself.
Really, why do you insist you are smarter than anyone and everyone in anything and everything in any day and everyday? Really, what is the complex?
And please don't come back with a picture containing some black ass as your ultimate answer!
You were always an arrogant kid with little flexibility in your thinking, but I have never seen you dumb to this low. What a stupid example is your choice! Remind you that the country that went through the split consisted of other nations as well, one of them B&H. It is needless to say what happened there. You can't just cherry pick some and hide under the carpet some other parts of the index country to prove your idea.
And this is your English masterpiece: "history shows that splitting a (divided) country is often for the better, at least, and that's the point, if it happens relatively in peace". You be the judge yourself.
Really, why do you insist you are smarter than anyone and everyone in anything and everything in any day and everyday? Really, what is the complex?
And please don't come back with a picture containing some black ass as your ultimate answer!
I'm sorry, I don't understand what the point you try to make is. If Ukraine split up tomorrow into a western part including Kiev and an eastern part around Donetzk and Crimea, nothing out of this world would happen and we would live happily ever after. That was the point esamani made. It wasn't about a civil war or anything, it was about splitting Ukraine up, a country that didn't exist in its current form until 25 years ago. Whatever that has to do with Hep C and HIV...
And your analogy or whatever it's supposed to be with drunk driving is terrible as well. Drunk driving is an active risk of your life and the life of others. Splitting up a country by mutual consent is neither. It's a choice you make given your own sovereignty. Just as it was nobody's business that Czechoslovakia split, because both wanted it to happen. Neither would be a split of Ukraine in 2 parts, if the people ask for it. Splitting up a country by war is a tragedy however.
Thanks I guess
B&H was never a nation. Yugoslavia was a united nation of Slavs, with different ethnicity, culture and religion. It didn't work out in the end. Some split peacefully, some relatively peaceful, others don't. Yugoslavia btw. was created after the 1st world war and during the 2nd world war, you had Croatians fighting with Nazis and Serbs with Allies. So much for whatever that was supposed to be.
Pray dear, tell us what happened there?
What do you mean by cherry picking? There are countries that split by more or less mutual consent and there are countries that split by war. Those that split by mutual consent were usually better off in the end. Those who split through war are 50/50. However, there's no proof for a country going down forever just because it splits. Now, nevermind that we're far away from Ukraine dividing in 2 halves. It was more a "thought experiment" if you like, with the point being, so what? It wouldn't be the first country to do so, it won't be the last.
English is my 3rd language. If you find faults and flaws in my grammar above, please point out and I will also start running a grammar check on your posts from now on as well. Do you really want to go there?
Where did I insist above that I'm smarter than anyone else? I made an argument above for splitting countries, how it can work out for the benefit of both and how the borders in many cases are rather arbitrary. Nowhere above did I make a claim for intellectual superiority. If you have an argument against it, point being an argument and not a rant dropping names of diseases, then please come up with an argument. If your arguments consist of ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the topic, well...go ahead and knock yourself out.
What's your problem with black asses? Would a white ass work better for you?
But seriously, why are you so mad?
And your analogy or whatever it's supposed to be with drunk driving is terrible as well. Drunk driving is an active risk of your life and the life of others. Splitting up a country by mutual consent is neither. It's a choice you make given your own sovereignty. Just as it was nobody's business that Czechoslovakia split, because both wanted it to happen. Neither would be a split of Ukraine in 2 parts, if the people ask for it. Splitting up a country by war is a tragedy however.
Thanks I guess
B&H was never a nation. Yugoslavia was a united nation of Slavs, with different ethnicity, culture and religion. It didn't work out in the end. Some split peacefully, some relatively peaceful, others don't. Yugoslavia btw. was created after the 1st world war and during the 2nd world war, you had Croatians fighting with Nazis and Serbs with Allies. So much for whatever that was supposed to be.
Pray dear, tell us what happened there?
What do you mean by cherry picking? There are countries that split by more or less mutual consent and there are countries that split by war. Those that split by mutual consent were usually better off in the end. Those who split through war are 50/50. However, there's no proof for a country going down forever just because it splits. Now, nevermind that we're far away from Ukraine dividing in 2 halves. It was more a "thought experiment" if you like, with the point being, so what? It wouldn't be the first country to do so, it won't be the last.
English is my 3rd language. If you find faults and flaws in my grammar above, please point out and I will also start running a grammar check on your posts from now on as well. Do you really want to go there?
Where did I insist above that I'm smarter than anyone else? I made an argument above for splitting countries, how it can work out for the benefit of both and how the borders in many cases are rather arbitrary. Nowhere above did I make a claim for intellectual superiority. If you have an argument against it, point being an argument and not a rant dropping names of diseases, then please come up with an argument. If your arguments consist of ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the topic, well...go ahead and knock yourself out.
What's your problem with black asses? Would a white ass work better for you?
But seriously, why are you so mad?
Last edited:
This is what Happens when a bunch of Morons in the capital gather around and scare those in some other provinces.
BBC report on Ukrainian Ultra-Right
BBC report on Ukrainian Ultra-Right
Reading Ukrain in Iran:
Ukrain's Democracy Square (cartoon by Ehsan Ganji, Etemaad daily)
WASHINGTON -- "Kyiv's historic day" or "Dem-wreck-cracy!"
The way Iranian media have portrayed Ukraine's turmoil depends on which side of Iran's political divide they stand.
Hard-line media have given readers the impression that the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych following months of antigovernment protests is a cause for mourning. Those skimming through the reformist press were likely to become excited about the developments in the eastern European country.
The differences highlighted the stances and world views of the two sides: on the one hand hard-liners' wariness of the West and popular protests, and on the other, a hunger for change among reformists who have been increasingly pushing for the release of Iranian opposition leaders.
In one example, the reformist daily "Etemad" carried the following headline about the February 22 freeing of Yulia Tymoshenko, a jailed leader of Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution: "The release of the Orange Lady on Kyiv's historic day." And next to the story, the daily published comments by Iran's parliament speaker regarding Iranian opposition figures who are under house arrest.]
"The release of the Orange Lady on Kyiv's historic day" (Etemaad daily)
"Regarding the house arrest of [Mir Hossein Musavi] and [Mehdi Karrubi], I have to say that there is no reason for individuals to be under arrest. These things should be fixed," Ali Larijani was quoted as saying in an interview with the French "Le Figaro."
The front page of another reformist daily "Shargh" also appeared to welcome Tymoshenko's release, with a front page that proclaimed: "The Orange Day."
That coverage was in contrast with the hard-line and conservative press, which have been quick to dismiss the events in Ukraine as a Western-backed coup that will bring the country only darker days ahead.
The newspaper "Vatan-e Emrouz" chose an apocalyptic scene for its front-page story devoted to events in Ukraine. A man holding Ukraine's flag walks along a street strewn with rubble against a smoke-filled backdrop. "Dem-wreck-cracy!" read the headline of the hard-line daily, which said Kyiv had fallen as the result of a pro-Western street coup.
"With the coming to power of the Orange [forces] and the influence of the United States and the West in the country, Ukraine's dark days have just begun," wrote the ultra-hardline daily "Kayhan."
The daily claimed that CIA and other Western intelligence services had helped repeat "the Orange Revolution" and brought down Yanukovych.
The conservative "Resalat" said the situation in Ukraine was the result of "Western meddling" in the country's affairs and that the real crisis had just begun.
'Sedition'
The hard-line media have been using some of the same language in their coverage of the 2009 antigovernment protests that shook the Islamic establishment. The protests and the opposition movement have been described as "sedition," while protesters have been accused of trying to launch a color revolution with the backing of Western countries.
State controlled television, which is controlled by the hardliners, has referred to the pro-Russian Yanukovych as Ukraine's " lawful president" while presenting Tymoshenko as someone jailed for abuse of power and economic corruption.
Warnings about Western influence in Ukraine were echoed by the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi, who said the events in Ukraine should be a warning to independent countries that they should not be duped by the United States.
"The lesson America and Westerners who believe in liberal democracy gave to the people of Ukraine is a historic lesson for all independent nations to be wary of the smiles and satanic ideas of capitalism," Firouzabadi was quoted as saying in the Iranian media.
The reports also said that Firouzabadi had expressed "regret" over the events in Ukraine.
U.S. based Iranian political analyst Mohsen Sazgara says Iranian leaders are wary of popular uprisings against dictators, unless they can put their own spin on it. They did so in the case of uprisings in Arab countries, which Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described as an "Islamic awakening" that had been inspired by Iran's 1979 revolution.
"A people's revolution, armed forces joining the citizens, the release of opposition figures, and the fall of the government is a mirror in which the Islamic Republic sees its own destiny," Sazgara told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.
On February 24, Iran's Justice Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi went to great length to explain that Ukraine was not Iran and the Iranian media should not get excited about events in Ukraine.
"Our country and our establishment are not comparable to these places," Pourmohammadi said, while adding that the Iranian regime was "stable" and "powerful."
Pourmohammadi added that the Iranian press should show not go overboard in its coverage of the events in Ukraine and feel "victorious."
"Something has happened in Ukraine, some newspapers put a headline as if it had happened in Iran," he said.
Radio Farda broadcaster Mohammad Reza Yazdanpanah contributed to this report
Copyright (c) 2014 RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org
... Payvand News - 02/28/14 ... --
Ukrain's Democracy Square (cartoon by Ehsan Ganji, Etemaad daily)
WASHINGTON -- "Kyiv's historic day" or "Dem-wreck-cracy!"
The way Iranian media have portrayed Ukraine's turmoil depends on which side of Iran's political divide they stand.
Hard-line media have given readers the impression that the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych following months of antigovernment protests is a cause for mourning. Those skimming through the reformist press were likely to become excited about the developments in the eastern European country.
The differences highlighted the stances and world views of the two sides: on the one hand hard-liners' wariness of the West and popular protests, and on the other, a hunger for change among reformists who have been increasingly pushing for the release of Iranian opposition leaders.
In one example, the reformist daily "Etemad" carried the following headline about the February 22 freeing of Yulia Tymoshenko, a jailed leader of Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution: "The release of the Orange Lady on Kyiv's historic day." And next to the story, the daily published comments by Iran's parliament speaker regarding Iranian opposition figures who are under house arrest.]
"The release of the Orange Lady on Kyiv's historic day" (Etemaad daily)
"Regarding the house arrest of [Mir Hossein Musavi] and [Mehdi Karrubi], I have to say that there is no reason for individuals to be under arrest. These things should be fixed," Ali Larijani was quoted as saying in an interview with the French "Le Figaro."
The front page of another reformist daily "Shargh" also appeared to welcome Tymoshenko's release, with a front page that proclaimed: "The Orange Day."
That coverage was in contrast with the hard-line and conservative press, which have been quick to dismiss the events in Ukraine as a Western-backed coup that will bring the country only darker days ahead.
The newspaper "Vatan-e Emrouz" chose an apocalyptic scene for its front-page story devoted to events in Ukraine. A man holding Ukraine's flag walks along a street strewn with rubble against a smoke-filled backdrop. "Dem-wreck-cracy!" read the headline of the hard-line daily, which said Kyiv had fallen as the result of a pro-Western street coup.
"With the coming to power of the Orange [forces] and the influence of the United States and the West in the country, Ukraine's dark days have just begun," wrote the ultra-hardline daily "Kayhan."
The daily claimed that CIA and other Western intelligence services had helped repeat "the Orange Revolution" and brought down Yanukovych.
The conservative "Resalat" said the situation in Ukraine was the result of "Western meddling" in the country's affairs and that the real crisis had just begun.
'Sedition'
The hard-line media have been using some of the same language in their coverage of the 2009 antigovernment protests that shook the Islamic establishment. The protests and the opposition movement have been described as "sedition," while protesters have been accused of trying to launch a color revolution with the backing of Western countries.
State controlled television, which is controlled by the hardliners, has referred to the pro-Russian Yanukovych as Ukraine's " lawful president" while presenting Tymoshenko as someone jailed for abuse of power and economic corruption.
Warnings about Western influence in Ukraine were echoed by the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi, who said the events in Ukraine should be a warning to independent countries that they should not be duped by the United States.
"The lesson America and Westerners who believe in liberal democracy gave to the people of Ukraine is a historic lesson for all independent nations to be wary of the smiles and satanic ideas of capitalism," Firouzabadi was quoted as saying in the Iranian media.
The reports also said that Firouzabadi had expressed "regret" over the events in Ukraine.
U.S. based Iranian political analyst Mohsen Sazgara says Iranian leaders are wary of popular uprisings against dictators, unless they can put their own spin on it. They did so in the case of uprisings in Arab countries, which Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described as an "Islamic awakening" that had been inspired by Iran's 1979 revolution.
"A people's revolution, armed forces joining the citizens, the release of opposition figures, and the fall of the government is a mirror in which the Islamic Republic sees its own destiny," Sazgara told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.
On February 24, Iran's Justice Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi went to great length to explain that Ukraine was not Iran and the Iranian media should not get excited about events in Ukraine.
"Our country and our establishment are not comparable to these places," Pourmohammadi said, while adding that the Iranian regime was "stable" and "powerful."
Pourmohammadi added that the Iranian press should show not go overboard in its coverage of the events in Ukraine and feel "victorious."
"Something has happened in Ukraine, some newspapers put a headline as if it had happened in Iran," he said.
Radio Farda broadcaster Mohammad Reza Yazdanpanah contributed to this report
Copyright (c) 2014 RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org
... Payvand News - 02/28/14 ... --
Didn't you guys beat up on Bush for 8 years because he did not send enough troops to Iraq? Now all of a sudden you are a fan of Rumsfeld? If Iraq taught you any thing was that you need boots on the ground to win a war. Let's see if Obama's drones can take back Fallujah. It took a whole Marine division going house to house, 50,000 of them to be exact, to free Fallujah by the so called "poor folks". How shameful of you to slander people who do a job you would not, and could not, do for a million dollars. The other fallacy of yours is that you are mistaking a 21st century fighting force with Walmart summer jobs. You need time to select them, train them and make them combat ready. The day you need them is NOT the time to start looking for them.
Flint I think you keep mixing up issues.
.Projecting Power (U.S can do this like no other country because of the Navy and the strategic bombers)
.Deterring and Invasion. U.S has nucluear weapons no body ever touches an Nuclear club country.
.Invading another country. The U.S has enough forces to invade any country short of China and Russia.
.Invading and Occupying a Country for 5-10 years. Three contemporary wars have proven that this is not going to work so you might as well not try.
->Vietnam Warm.
->2003 Iraq War
->Afghanistan War
.Projecting Power (U.S can do this like no other country because of the Navy and the strategic bombers)
.Deterring and Invasion. U.S has nucluear weapons no body ever touches an Nuclear club country.
.Invading another country. The U.S has enough forces to invade any country short of China and Russia.
.Invading and Occupying a Country for 5-10 years. Three contemporary wars have proven that this is not going to work so you might as well not try.
->Vietnam Warm.
->2003 Iraq War
->Afghanistan War
I am no fan of Putin, the Stalin admirer, but the exert below is 100% correct assessment:
"Yes, Russia moving into the Crimean Ukraine is evil. So was the US putting $5 billion toward regime change in Kiev. But the US's evil move was far more *senseless* and *reckless* than Russia's.
Imagine if the Soviet Union had supported a street revolution in Mexico City which overthrew the elected government of Mexico and supplanted it with a clearly pro-Russian, anti-American regime.
Imagine the prospect of Mexico becoming very close to the Warsaw Pact, and even possibly hosting missile bases just a few miles from the Rio Grande. And imagine the extremely pro-American populace of Baja California becoming restive under that situation.
Of course the US would wrest Baja away from the rest of Mexico in that situation. Would it be right? No. But it would hardly be as outrageously imperialistic as Kerry and the media are making the move on Crimea out to be.
In contrast, Russia spending $5 billion on its violent allies within Mexico City WOULD be outrageously imperialistic. And it would not be nearly as benign as many are making the NATO threat against Russia involved in the Ukrainian coup out to be.
Funding revolution *halfway around the world* is more imperialistic than directly effecting revolution right on your border. Both are evil, but let's be clear who really has pretensions toward global hegemony here.
Let me say again: BOTH are evil. This is NOT to defend Putin. This is to EXPLAIN and put things in perspective.
It is also to drive home that Washington doesn't have a single "moral high horse" leg to stand on in this matter; and it certainly doesn't have the moral standing to risk all of our lives with possible thermonuclear war over it by indulging in tough talk and economic warfare." - Daniel James Sanchez
"Yes, Russia moving into the Crimean Ukraine is evil. So was the US putting $5 billion toward regime change in Kiev. But the US's evil move was far more *senseless* and *reckless* than Russia's.
Imagine if the Soviet Union had supported a street revolution in Mexico City which overthrew the elected government of Mexico and supplanted it with a clearly pro-Russian, anti-American regime.
Imagine the prospect of Mexico becoming very close to the Warsaw Pact, and even possibly hosting missile bases just a few miles from the Rio Grande. And imagine the extremely pro-American populace of Baja California becoming restive under that situation.
Of course the US would wrest Baja away from the rest of Mexico in that situation. Would it be right? No. But it would hardly be as outrageously imperialistic as Kerry and the media are making the move on Crimea out to be.
In contrast, Russia spending $5 billion on its violent allies within Mexico City WOULD be outrageously imperialistic. And it would not be nearly as benign as many are making the NATO threat against Russia involved in the Ukrainian coup out to be.
Funding revolution *halfway around the world* is more imperialistic than directly effecting revolution right on your border. Both are evil, but let's be clear who really has pretensions toward global hegemony here.
Let me say again: BOTH are evil. This is NOT to defend Putin. This is to EXPLAIN and put things in perspective.
It is also to drive home that Washington doesn't have a single "moral high horse" leg to stand on in this matter; and it certainly doesn't have the moral standing to risk all of our lives with possible thermonuclear war over it by indulging in tough talk and economic warfare." - Daniel James Sanchez
