Russian Navy "On Verge of Collapse"

You have not presented the full text of the resolution...

You did not present the vote, I did. You erroneously concluded that all of Europe voted "Yes" for it...

I would not vote for any resolution whose text I have not read.

It's the United Nations...

For better or worse, little they say and do is considered "news worthy" by the mainstream US media.

 

I'm in your boat. Let's know when you stumble upon these countries statements. I'm also very interested. There is nothing about this resolution in the States.

Good luck.

 

No smoke screen at all. Only a peawit would vote for a bill he has not read. Unfortunately, Congress is filled with them.

Yes, there is a chance I too would vote against it. What about it? The 2001 World Conference on Racism fell apart when Arab nations tried to equate Zionism with Racism...

I'm also curious as to where the Anti-Stalinism part is? After all, he was just as "bad" as the Hitler and the Nazis...
Oh, Yeah...This was a Russian introduced...No wonder.

 

Why Canada Voted Against Resolution At UN To Combat 'Glorification Of Nazism'
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/26/canada-united-nations-nazism-resolution_n_6228152.html

 

Because seems to be doing what he can to destroy in prospect of democracy in Russia and in the process limiting other rights and freedoms the Russian people should enjoy.

Looks like Putin is the one trying to push a military confrontation. You are aware that in taking the Crimea one of the treaties he broke had the US as a cosigner, right?

??? Was that an attempt at humor? If so it fell really flat. Putin makes our NeoCons look like the soul of moderation and discretion.

Actually if you look back through this thread I've listed quite a few sources. As for yours, let's take a look (ignoring youtube:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/german-officials-claims-of-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-are-american-propaganda/203338/
An opinion piece that claims some US statements are false but provides no evidence and judging by some of the other articles on it a questionable source at best.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/12/sen-inhofe-blames-ukrainian-parliament-for-falsified-photo/
A picture is not what some thought or claimed it was although it's not clear if this was deliberate or accidental. Since they didn't show the picture or go into the details of why it was important I can't get too worked up about it.

Can't get to the spiegel article right now for some reason. So far I don't see that you've really supplied that many facts or sources. Certainly you haven't quoted what you think are the relevant parts of them.

I mentioned the NPR interviews a couple of times but I haven't been able to find the transcript and those are to a great exten anacdotal as well although they interviewed quite a few people for them. It is worth noting however that your position stated above is a rather classic example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. The acquisition of the Crimea was in violation of international law and several treaties with sovereign states. Furthermore the "referendum" was so fawed as to be of little use in determining what the real opinion of people in the Crimea was on the issue. Certainly some wanted to be part of Russia, others part of the Ukraine, and I suspect many wanted to be independent of either. The percentages that fit in the various catagoires are uknown though.

Possibly but given the actions he's taken to date that's a bit suspect as well.

What an absurd thing to say.

You got the first half right but the second is hardly correct and in any case doesn't support your previous statement.

You really should read something other than Russian propaganda or are you so brainwashed by it you just can't comprehend anything else?


Due to the quote limits I'll stop here and continue in another post.

 

Actually they were so flawed as to be useless in determing what people really wanted in addition to being somewhat less than legitimate.

We have multiple independent sources that say just the opposite. Indeed we have had a number of reports that make it clear that those sources are at least for the most part correct.

Same no. As bad or worse yes.

Now we have your opinion care to try and make a case for it?

The first sentence is so wrong it's abusd, Ronald Reagan was arguably a NeoCon by the way.

What an amazingly flawed view of internatinal relations at least in North America. Neither Canada nor Mexico take orders from the US. Look at any of the recent bilateral negotiations we've had with either and it's quite clear it's not a matter of giving orders.

Then you have a very active imagination. That might have been the case 100 years ago but it is hardly the case today.

???? Just when I think you can't say anything more absurd you come up with one like that. Amazing simply amazing.

Actually there are quite a few and they seem to be working moderately well. Indeed better than when the Soviets were around. Not anywhere near perfection but we can't have everything.

I don't think Putin is anywhere near that dumb. But if you really believe what you are saying I guess it's possible.

Breaking here due to quote limits one more to follow.

 

Making sure you keep your batting average at 000 I see.

Or not. Looking at the resolution I can see why the US and Canada opposed it. It applies limites to freedom of speach that simply can't be supported. The source you quote was quite inventive in it's explanation but hardly accurate. For example:

How many things can you get wrong in such a few lines ....

 

Well, I have read the Resolution.

Yes, I would vote against it.

Edit: Now, I am wondering if Russia did not write the Resolution specifically so that the US would Vote "no."

Thanks for your tirade Sloniksp. Without you I would never have thought that Russia could be so devious.

 

This page has the text of the resolution:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-un-anti-nazi-resolution-the-prague-declaration-and-the-history-of-us-accommodation-with-nazism/5422783
or at least part of it including:

Which I believe would be in violation of the US freedom of speach laws.
Although this link states the US did it because the Ukraine believed it was aimed at them (and they were likely correct in that)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/11/u-s-among-3-countries-u-n-officially-backing-nazism-israel-parts-company-germany-abstains.html
This one has a link to the full text:
http://carolynyeager.net/russia-behind-another-un-resolution-against-heroization-nazism
Which I can't seem to get to right now but it's down near the bottom of the article.

 

Not just any laws...It is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution

Here is the "offending" part of the Resolution

Full text of the Resolution can be found here:
http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/propslist.shtml
Just Scroll down to "Item 66 Elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance:"
It is A/C.3/69/L.56/Rev.1

The US simply cannot do either (a) or (b) without first amending the US Constitution.

 

Thank you, young Sir.

 

Welcome. I ran into the same problem of having to sift through several socialist flagrantly biased websites, before finding this.

 

Success. I finally found a way to direct link to the Resolution that works.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/69/L.56/Rev.1

 

Russia is not fully self sufficient, Had they been fully self sufficient they would not be experiencing the dramatic price hikes to the extent that are occurring.

As to the Ships, Canada and many other nations can afford them. The Mistral are a very cheap ship. The first two ships total 1.37 billion euros, If you think no nation in NATO can afford that then you are seriously misinformed, Hell based on crew sizing New Zealand could buy and field one of them independently. As for Turkey and India having no interest, Im guessing you have final say in their military and government affairs? Both have expressed interest in them should they be put up for sale.

 

Doesn't Russia get most of its Uranium from Australia?

 

I don't believe so, We signed an agreement in 2007 but since then (Up to 2014 when we banned exports to Russia) only about 100 tons has been ships.

Australian uranium exports generally goes to 3 main nations/blocs, USA, EU and Japan. China is a growing export destination while other nations make up a small market.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Australia/

Should note that is old information on who gets it and how much, Most part export destinations will remain the same just fluctuations in the amount exported.

What may be affected is Russia's uranium exports, Could hurt some of t heir importers but would also make room for expansion opportunities in Canada and Australia.

 

Not going to happen. The French still owe us one Rainbow Warrior.

 

Not saying it would, Just giving an indication of how easy it would be for a nation to acquire it and operate it, Sloniksp saying that Canada couldn't afford it was simply totally out of touch with reality. Hell Australia getting two larger ships and our national GDP is smaller then Canada.

 

Really? "useless in determining what people wanted" you say...

Judging by several of your posts I would state that your entire perception of Russia is unfortunate and complete fiction.

It's been a while since I have read something so vague. I spoke off personal experiences and eye witness accounts and you hit me with this smoke screen?

No matter what I say or show you that conflicts with the US stance/version of current events is
immediately tossed aside and labeled as unreliable Russian propaganda. Considering that every side has two stories and your refusal to contemplate the Russian side while claiming to be unbiased is astounding. Only two reasons why really.... 1. It doesn't matter because ultimately the US is in the right. 2. Everything coming out of Russia by Russia is a lie. Again, judging by your numerous posts, its almost
as if you want Russia to be wrong, guilty or oppressive. The BAD GUY... WHY?

The Wolfowitz doctrine and it's implementation in US foreign policy by neocons is my opinion?? And now I have to make a case for it?
Nice try. I'm not a new kid on the block and I'm aware of how this game is played.

I presented the source if you don't like it or question it's authenticity then its up to you to discredit it.

After reading this three times I've have come to the conclusion that THIS is the winner for vagueness.

So after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were other countries that could check the United States in foreign affairs?!?! Please share these counter weights with us and their "work" that "seems" to "moderately" going well?

Can you also elaborate on the "better then when the Soviets were around" please?

I am only relaying the side of the story which you never seem to believe or accept. Putin did in fact say this. According to Wolfowitz doctrine the US changed her nuclear doctrine from defensive to offensive and even against countries who may not possess any. This is of course if one believes this kind of stuff.

Putin admitted that he wasn't sure how the west would react. He took all precautions.

 

The U.S. magazine Forbes published results of a number of opinion polls carried out by Western research organisations which indicate that:

Crimea’s residents prefer being part of Russia than of Ukraine.

I'm quite sure that the same results could have been obtianed in more "Ukrainian" regions.

It is absolutely of no relevance what the opinion of Americans or Europeans and Ukrainians is. Self-determination is not a foreign affair: it is strictly domestic one. Russia to the Russians.

Let the Russians caught in the present day "Ukraine" decide where do they really belong. Obviously not to the re-incarnation of the Nazi-Ukraine.

PS: There is yet another question the present day "Ukraine" has to face:

Where are Rutenians and the other minorities erradicated since the establishment of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine"? Millions of people are missing.