Congratulations people of Crimea

[Jmac1026]

YOU DID. Grammar Nazi wins this thread.

What will the Nazis win next... ?

To be continued.

... Poland?

Hey, they gotta start somewhere.

[muy_thaiguy]

YOU DID. Grammar Nazi wins this thread.

What will the Nazis win next... ?

To be continued.

... Poland?

Hey, they gotta start somewhere.

I was going to say Austria.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm glad JB has dropped his "nationalism causes war; therefore, stop nationalism argument." Let's see what else he brought to the party:

I haven't dropped it, I just thought you shut the f*ck up since I told you that I would leave you alone if you would leave me alone. You want to talk about Child's play, that's something even children understand. You're on foe, I can't see your posts. They're typically shit posts, so why would I want to see them? You used to be one of the people here who rationalized away the conspiracy theorists, now you're one of them.
And I thought you stopped pretending to be an economist since I caught you the last time.

Your analogy holds if Russia's economic success was somehow a 10-year hyperinflation (which it isn't), which then collapsed and remained much lower (which it hasn't).

Literally never said anything of the kind. Strawman.

Putin's power is not nearly as absolute as Hitler's. This is why people roll their eyes at you when you make a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument. Thus, we can strike spurious "Putin = Spy Officer and Hitler = WW1 Officer" off the list.

Again, you're using Reductio ad Hitlerum wrong. You know all these latin terms for arguments, but you have no idea where to use them. The connection between Russia being ruled by an officer and Germany by a proud soldier is about each nation's leader's core belief and existence in a military structure.

Germany under the Weimar Republic is one of the few cases of hyperinflation. Even in the 1930s, its economy was crap. Your analogy between the two countries is like saying a $80 million race horse (Russia) is the same as a decrepit donkey (Germany 1920s-1930s).

You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.
Once the Nazi's came to power in the 30's the German economy completely turned around under Minister of Economics Hjalmar Schacht. The German workers/economy became the envy of Europe.
The Nazi's set up a system of price-controls, Hitler stopped making reparations payments, and had a secrete system put in place so that Germany could essentially loan itself money. He broke up unions, made farmers national heroes, and helped manufacturers keep laborers in place. The Nazis came up with a work-card system to that end, and a state-run vacation program to help keep everyone happy. All of this lead to a skilled workforce, with job security, and a constantly growing industrial manufacturing base. Hitler had an obsession with keeping German citizen's happy, and repeatedly spoke to his inner circle of the need to prevent rebellion by keeping German's standard of living very high. Albert Speer's memoirs are littered with these accounts.

Hitler was regarded as an economics wizard by Germans. An economic wizard. IN FACT THE NAZI ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE STILL IN PRACTICE ALL OVER THE WORLD TODAY.

In the end though, Germany could not sustain it's secret process of loaning itself money, and so it invaded other country's to get a hold on their currency to continue the living standards of Germans. Their manufacturing base was also secretly devoted to their arms build up. So you're talking out of your ass. KK thnx bi

[Qwert]

juan botom
I think you need to tell me why I'm wrong to compare Russia's actions in the last 20 years to Germany's actions leading up to WWII. Just because you don't like the parallel that I've drawn for you does not mean that it is without merit. European history is frighteningly repetitious. Every few years there's some asshole just nibbling away at his neighbors until he sparks a huge war.

and why you use NAzi Germany to compare with Russia,, why not compare US and Russia?

All wars after WWII are responibile two power-US and Russia,, so help me to build objective picture.

Lets try to both be objective and not hold any side.

brake of international law(after 1945)(no approval of UN)

US
1965-Ocupation of Dominican Republic
1956-Vietnam War
1961-Cuba attack
1964-laos bombardment
1983-Granada Invasion
1986-bombing of libya
1989-Panama Invasion
1992-Iraq no fly zone
1998-Bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan
1999-SR Yugoslavia bombardment
2001-Ocupation of Afghanistan
2003-Ocupation of Iraq
2011-LIbya bombardment (violation of Un resolution 1973)
2014-drone Campaign in PAkistan and Yemen


SSSR
1956-Hungary
1968-CSSR invasion
1979-Afghanistan occupation

Russia
2008-Georgia
2014-Ukraine

according on this US lead 14-5 against USSR/Russia in brake of international law. If i miss something please help to fill a list.

[Symmetry]

The Falklands?

[mrswdk]

YOU DID. Grammar Nazi wins this thread.

What will the Nazis win next... ?

To be continued.

... Poland?

Hey, they gotta start somewhere.

I was going to say Austria.

I was going to say Ukraine laughoutloud

[mrswdk]

In the end though, Germany could not sustain it's secret process of loaning itself money, and so it invaded other country's to get a hold on their currency to continue the living standards of Germans. Their manufacturing base was also secretly devoted to their arms build up.

And you think Hitler's Germany had a good economic system?

[Juan_Bottom]

Naw, it was absolutely a wreck. I'm not saying it was a good system, I'm just saying that it appeared to work like magic. In the short term everything looked excellent, Germans were producing, and everyone felt secure, excepting for the persecuted. Everyone in Europe wanted to know how the Nazi's did it, and that got them a lot of support abroad. People love you when you're winning. But it was also a self-destructive system. It was only the conquest of neighboring countries that enable Germany to continue the way she did.
Many of these techniques have been modified and are still in practice today, like the art of lending yourself money. And I don't think any of us have a positive view of this. And at least 1 person here doesn't have a good view of conquering your neighbors to help shore up your finances. I do have some respect for the impressive way Schacht was able to manipulate everything to create massive economic growth during a Depression. But frankly aside from that the whole program was disgusting to a Democratic Socialist like me.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm glad JB has dropped his "nationalism causes war; therefore, stop nationalism argument." Let's see what else he brought to the party:

I haven't dropped it, I just thought you shut the f*ck up since I told you that I would leave you alone if you would leave me alone. You want to talk about Child's play, that's something even children understand. You're on foe, I can't see your posts. They're typically shit posts, so why would I want to see them? You used to be one of the people here who rationalized away the conspiracy theorists, now you're one of them.
And I thought you stopped pretending to be an economist since I caught you the last time.

Your analogy holds if Russia's economic success was somehow a 10-year hyperinflation (which it isn't), which then collapsed and remained much lower (which it hasn't).

Literally never said anything of the kind. Strawman.

Putin's power is not nearly as absolute as Hitler's. This is why people roll their eyes at you when you make a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument. Thus, we can strike spurious "Putin = Spy Officer and Hitler = WW1 Officer" off the list.

Again, you're using Reductio ad Hitlerum wrong. You know all these latin terms for arguments, but you have no idea where to use them. The connection between Russia being ruled by an officer and Germany by a proud soldier is about each nation's leader's core belief and existence in a military structure.

Germany under the Weimar Republic is one of the few cases of hyperinflation. Even in the 1930s, its economy was crap. Your analogy between the two countries is like saying a $80 million race horse (Russia) is the same as a decrepit donkey (Germany 1920s-1930s).

You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.
Once the Nazi's came to power in the 30's the German economy completely turned around under Minister of Economics Hjalmar Schacht. The German workers/economy became the envy of Europe.
The Nazi's set up a system of price-controls, Hitler stopped making reparations payments, and had a secrete system put in place so that Germany could essentially loan itself money. He broke up unions, made farmers national heroes, and helped manufacturers keep laborers in place. The Nazis came up with a work-card system to that end, and a state-run vacation program to help keep everyone happy. All of this lead to a skilled workforce, with job security, and a constantly growing industrial manufacturing base. Hitler had an obsession with keeping German citizen's happy, and repeatedly spoke to his inner circle of the need to prevent rebellion by keeping German's standard of living very high. Albert Speer's memoirs are littered with these accounts.

Hitler was regarded as an economics wizard by Germans. An economic wizard. IN FACT THE NAZI ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE STILL IN PRACTICE ALL OVER THE WORLD TODAY.

In the end though, Germany could not sustain it's secret process of loaning itself money, and so it invaded other country's to get a hold on their currency to continue the living standards of Germans. Their manufacturing base was also secretly devoted to their arms build up. So you're talking out of your ass. KK thnx bi

JB, your comparison between the two is flawed, and you haven't provided any evidence which counters mine or which further substantiates your points.

Why do you insist on making shit up? Why do that to yourself?

[rishaed]

Naw, it was absolutely a wreck. I'm not saying it was a good system, I'm just saying that it appeared to work like magic. In the short term everything looked excellent, Germans were producing, and everyone felt secure, excepting for the persecuted. Everyone in Europe wanted to know how the Nazi's did it, and that got them a lot of support abroad. People love you when you're winning. But it was also a self-destructive system. It was only the conquest of neighboring countries that enable Germany to continue the way she did.
Many of these techniques have been modified and are still in practice today, like the art of lending yourself money. And I don't think any of us have a positive view of this. And at least 1 person here doesn't have a good view of conquering your neighbors to help shore up your finances. I do have some respect for the impressive way Schacht was able to manipulate everything to create massive economic growth during a Depression. But frankly aside from that the whole program was disgusting to a Democratic Socialist like me.

If anything WW2 got the U.S. of the depresssion as well. We sold weapons to both sides, our manufacturing went through the roof, and people got a ton of jobs. There were other factors in Germany resulting in the depression as well. All those huge indemnities to france (and other nations?) from WW1 and all that? There was no way the wrecked german economy could support that on top of their own populations economic security. That and France took away one of their best economic assets in the Rhine Valley. Hitler: A. Took back the Rhine (remember HUGE economic asset). And started manufacturing there. Breach of treaty from WW1 and all, but it did get the German economy running again. Also somewhere in there he stopped paying the indemnities I'm pretty sure. If your going to say that it was selfdestructive, from your earlier post you aren't including all of the factors.

[BigBallinStalin]

Naw, it was absolutely a wreck. I'm not saying it was a good system, I'm just saying that it appeared to work like magic. In the short term everything looked excellent, Germans were producing, and everyone felt secure, excepting for the persecuted. Everyone in Europe wanted to know how the Nazi's did it, and that got them a lot of support abroad. People love you when you're winning. But it was also a self-destructive system. It was only the conquest of neighboring countries that enable Germany to continue the way she did.
Many of these techniques have been modified and are still in practice today, like the art of lending yourself money. And I don't think any of us have a positive view of this. And at least 1 person here doesn't have a good view of conquering your neighbors to help shore up your finances. I do have some respect for the impressive way Schacht was able to manipulate everything to create massive economic growth during a Depression. But frankly aside from that the whole program was disgusting to a Democratic Socialist like me.

If anything WW2 got the U.S. of the depresssion as well. We sold weapons to both sides, our manufacturing went through the roof, and people got a ton of jobs. There were other factors in Germany resulting in the depression as well. All those huge indemnities to france (and other nations?) from WW1 and all that? There was no way the wrecked german economy could support that on top of their own populations economic security. That and France took away one of their best economic assets in the Rhine Valley. Hitler: A. Took back the Rhine (remember HUGE economic asset). And started manufacturing there. Breach of treaty from WW1 and all, but it did get the German economy running again. Also somewhere in there he stopped paying the indemnities I'm pretty sure. If your going to say that it was selfdestructive, from your earlier post you aren't including all of the factors.

No, it didn't. Private production shrank further as war spending increased, and it recovered after the war. People can't eat tanks and ammunition. Price controls and rationing don't bring greater prosperity. Government-created prices on war goods is counted as positive GDP (e.g. if the government spend $10 billion on wooden houses and then burned them all down, GDP goes up by $10 billion + the wages for the firestarters).

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/27/w ... end-the-gr
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/1 ... he_gr.html
http://mises.org/daily/5069
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/new ... newsID=122
http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2011 ... ww-ii.html

[DoomYoshi]

FINALLY!

NASA declares war on Russia

also, the best story of the day:
Yanukovych admits that the Russians had no reason to invade, and just used the protests as an excuse.

[GoranZ]

also, the best story of the day:
Yanukovych admits that the Russians had no reason to invade, and just used the protests as an excuse.

No politician has bigger voice then the voice of the people... And the voice of the Crimean people is well known, they dont want to be part of Ukraine, they want to be part of Russia.

DoomYoshi, is forbidding someone to chose for him self democratic or nondemocratic behavior?

[DoomYoshi]

It is not. If the referendum would have occurred in a neutral time, without nonuniformed troops marching around, with full inclusion (i.e. the Tartars), then I would agree that it is a democratic referendum. All these things being the case, I call bs.

You say "the voice of the Crimean people". Yanukovych is Crimean. Why is he not included in your "Crimean people"?

[GoranZ]

DoomYoshi, is forbidding someone to chose for him self democratic or nondemocratic behavior?

It is not. If the referendum would have occurred in a neutral time, without nonuniformed troops marching around, with full inclusion (i.e. the Tartars), then I would agree that it is a democratic referendum. All these things being the case, I call bs.

Those that wanted to vote give their voice... Even over 50% of nonRussians give their voice also. There are some that chose not to give their voice(Tartars) but that's their choice. After all 12% people cant demonize the remaining, nor they should.

You say "the voice of the Crimean people". Yanukovych is Crimean. Why is he not included in your "Crimean people"?

Buhahahahaha Yanukovych is not Crimean, he is of Russian, Polish and Belarusian descent.


DoomYoshi, is it democratic behavior to tell someone that his voice doesn't count?

[saxitoxin]

NASA declares war on Russia

LMAO, I literally LOL'ed at this ...

U.S. Government has determined that all NASA contacts with Russian Government representatives are suspended, unless the activity has been specifically excepted. At the present time ... operational International Space Station activities have been excepted.

IOW, the U.S. has no ability anymore to launch manned space missions so they can't really break ties with Russia since U.S. astronauts ride Russian rockets. So they've puffed their chests up and banned people sending emails! This is as empty and stupid as the threats I was making in Game 13937407 when I controlled one territory. Russia should call this bluff and break ties with NASA ... including ISS access.

[saxitoxin]

A Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday indicates that only 24% of the public equates Putin's annexing last month of neighboring Ukraine's Crimea peninsula with Hitler's actions.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

[jefjef]

It is hilarious. The U.S. has started 4 wars in the last 10 years

I literally LOL'ed at this dribble. The US hasn't started a war since the 1800's. All other military actions have been necessary against various trash on this planet. You know that.

[BigBallinStalin]

It is not. If the referendum would have occurred in a neutral time, without nonuniformed troops marching around, with full inclusion (i.e. the Tartars), then I would agree that it is a democratic referendum. All these things being the case, I call bs.

You say "the voice of the Crimean people". Yanukovych is Crimean. Why is he not included in your "Crimean people"?

The referendum is pretty much bullshit, but does it convey preferences better than invading a country and imposing one foreign official to select 10 locals for the Transition Council?

[BigBallinStalin]

It is hilarious. The U.S. has started 4 wars in the last 10 years

I literally LOL'ed at this dribble. The US hasn't started a war since the 1800's. All other military actions have been necessary against various trash on this planet. You know that.

0/10

[rishaed]

It is hilarious. The U.S. has started 4 wars in the last 10 years

I literally LOL'ed at this dribble. The US hasn't started a war since the 1800's. All other military actions have been necessary against various trash on this planet. You know that.

>.> The last official "war" was WW2 so in a sense you are correct, as my U.S. History teacher put it we have classified everything else as "conflicts" since Congress did not officially declare war on another state.... That doesn't mean that we haven't had acts of aggression on other countries over the past decade or two.

[jefjef]

That doesn't mean that we haven't had acts of aggression on other countries over the past decade or two.

Acts of Retaliation - YES
Combat against aggressor nations - YES
Defense of US citizens and national security - YES
Assisting other countries in defense against invaders - YES

Acts of aggression by the US without provocation - NO

[rishaed]

That doesn't mean that we haven't had acts of aggression on other countries over the past decade or two.

Acts of Retaliation - YES
Combat against aggressor nations - YES
Defense of US citizens and national security - YES
Assisting other countries in defense against invaders - YES

Acts of aggression by the US without provocation - NO

looks like you've been buying into the media propoganda a bit too much, with the idea that the US can do no wrong. >.> As much as I support people in and done serving, that does not mean I think all of our reasons were clean going into places. And how do you retaliate against people who commit terrorism through suicide? Why have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan for around 13 freaking years now. Through roughly 2 full presidencies by two different presidents. You wanna retaliate against terror cells you don't send the entire freaking military after them, you use Spec Ops, infiltration, spying, and other means. As for "assisting" other countries being invaded??? Thats just business no matter how we try to describe it. We sold weapons to both sides for quite a bit in WW2 until we chose a side, and I doubt anything has changed since then.

[Pope Joan]

That doesn't mean that we haven't had acts of aggression on other countries over the past decade or two.

Acts of Retaliation - YES
Combat against aggressor nations - YES
Defense of US citizens and national security - YES
Assisting other countries in defense against invaders - YES

Acts of aggression by the US without provocation - NO

Pre-emptive Self-defence -- YES

[BigBallinStalin]

That doesn't mean that we haven't had acts of aggression on other countries over the past decade or two.

Acts of Retaliation - YES
Combat against aggressor nations - YES
Defense of US citizens and national security - YES
Assisting other countries in defense against invaders - YES

Acts of aggression by the US without provocation - NO

"Acts of aggression by the US without provocation" != "starting a war"


In any event, you can always say the other side 'provoked' you before you provoked them. And they can always say that you provoked them. Any threat of potentially fighting someone can be counted as a provocation (e.g. having a military, or having a military in arbitrary location X). Any infringement or imagined threat against national sovereignty can be perceived as a provocation. "Without provocation" is a silly standard.

Regardless, claiming that the US has started any wars since the 1800s is ridiculous. Maybe if you change the definition of "war" and "start" from their common-sense definitions, then you might have a point.