Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Agent327]

I made an argument about CIA programs and Snowden files, it is you who is trying to refute it by making irrelevant comments.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is, in fact, quite relevant. Making snarky remarks about 'missing commas' isn't.

 

[red_elk]

Pointing out a logical fallacy is, in fact, quite relevant. Making snarky remarks about 'missing commas' isn't.

Then you should explain how my argument about CIA prisons and Snowden files constitutes a "logical fallacy".

 

[Agent327]

I see we're asking the same question again - which has been answered. Perhaps you should ask it a few more times?

See here:

Logical fallacy. You can't have public awareness without public knowledge. (As already mentioned in my first comment, but apparently you missed that as usual.)

This is a circular argument: public awareness (which you found lacking) depends on public knowledge. And the public only became aware of such covert actions after they were publicized, obviously. After which public awareness has not been lacking.

 

[red_elk]

This is a circular argument: public awareness (which you found lacking) depends on public knowledge. And the public only became aware of such covert actions after they were publicized, obviously. After which public awareness has not been lacking.

The problem is in existence of the covert activity, not in the definitions of awareness or knowledge.

 

[Commodore]

You do realize that your own quoted polling results are in favor of annexation, right? So Putin overblows the margin. Honest question; so what?

Way to move the goal posts there champ. You said there was no clear evidence the poll results were fabricated and I showed that there is in fact clear evidence that Putin's government fabricated the results. You were wrong, I was right. Admit it and get over it.

And no, the results do not come out in favor of annexation. The results only show that 55 percent of the 40 percent of the population that showed up to vote are in favor of annexation. Overall, that only means 22 percent are confirmed to be in favor of annexation, 18 percent are confirmed against, and the rest are undecided. Plus, even if we did go with the 55 percent number, that is hardly a true mandate from the people. Sure, it is a simple majority, but you can't just ignore the wishes of 45 percent of the population for a decision such as this. Putin knew this, which is why he deliberately fudged the numbers to make it look like the referendum had overwhelming support.

And no, our original topic was not about who defied the UNSC more recently, our discussion started when you falsely tried to morally equivalize the actions of the US with the actions of Russia in response to me stating it is my opinion that Russia doesn't deserve a seat on the UNSC due to their actions in general. Not their actions as they pertain directly to the UNSC. You are the one who attempted to narrow the scope that far in order to make your argument work; which just goes to show how weak your argument was in the first place.

I mean, it's okay if you are just so anti-US that you are incapable of seeing any action they take in an objective light; I just wish you would have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Way to move the goal posts there champ. You said there was no clear evidence the poll results were fabricated and I showed that there is in fact clear evidence that Putin's government fabricated the results. You were wrong, I was right. Admit it and get over it.

And no, the results do not come out in favor of annexation. The results only show that 55 percent of the 40 percent of the population that showed up to vote are in favor of annexation. Overall, that only means 22 percent are confirmed to be in favor of annexation, 18 percent are confirmed against, and the rest are undecided. Plus, even if we did go with the 55 percent number, that is hardly a true mandate from the people. Sure, it is a simple majority, but you can't just ignore the wishes of 45 percent of the population for a decision such as this. Putin knew this, which is why he deliberately fudged the numbers to make it look like the referendum had overwhelming support.

And no, our original topic was not about who defied the UNSC more recently, our discussion started when you falsely tried to morally equivalize the actions of the US with the actions of Russia in response to me stating it is my opinion that Russia doesn't deserve a seat on the UNSC due to their actions in general. Not their actions as they pertain directly to the UNSC. You are the one who attempted to narrow the scope that far in order to make your argument work; which just goes to show how weak your argument was in the first place.

I mean, it's okay if you are just so anti-US that you are incapable of seeing any action they take in an objective light; I just wish you would have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Cool. Putin overblew the results. I already acknowledged that, but I will again. But the results are in favor of annexation. And the turnout is comparable to a US presidential election and massively exceed the turnout of the recent midterm election. There is no valid argument that the Russians were not welcomed to Crimea with the open arms Dick Cheney predicted that US troops would get in Iraq.

I never tried to equate US actions with Russian actions in regards to who "merits" a permanent seat on the security council. As demonstrated, the US has undermined the UN, demonstrated no regard whatsoever for the UN charter to which they are signatories, have actively undermined sovereign governments around the world (which you pointed out as 'the best defense'), and have invaded two sovereign countries. There is no way I would equate their behavior with Russia's.

I get it. You want to cling to that 'but we're the good guys' stance. I have no problem with that.

 

[Tahuti]

Cool. Putin overblew the results. I already acknowledged that, but I will again. But the results are in favor of annexation. And the turnout is comparable to a US presidential election and massively exceed the turnout of the recent midterm election. There is no valid argument that the Russians were not welcomed to Crimea with the open arms Dick Cheney predicted that US troops would get in Iraq.

I never tried to equate US actions with Russian actions in regards to who "merits" a permanent seat on the security council. As demonstrated, the US has undermined the UN, demonstrated no regard whatsoever for the UN charter to which they are signatories, have actively undermined sovereign governments around the world (which you pointed out as 'the best defense'), and have invaded two sovereign countries. There is no way I would equate their behavior with Russia's.

I get it. You want to cling to that 'but we're the good guys' stance. I have no problem with that.

The Russian actions in Ukraine by themselves are rather understandable, and certainly more so than US actions in the Middle-East. At least Russia's actions can at least be construed as an intervention in what was their backyard already. You can't say the same about Iraq 2003. Or the recent dronestrikes in Pakistan.

 

[red_elk]

And no, the results do not come out in favor of annexation. The results only show that 55 percent of the 40 percent of the population that showed up to vote are in favor of annexation. Overall, that only means 22 percent are confirmed to be in favor of annexation, 18 percent are confirmed against, and the rest are undecided. Plus, even if we did go with the 55 percent number, that is hardly a true mandate from the people. Sure, it is a simple majority, but you can't just ignore the wishes of 45 percent of the population for a decision such as this. Putin knew this, which is why he deliberately fudged the numbers to make it look like the referendum had overwhelming support.

I don't follow your logic. You took official results, explained that they don't show people's support of annexation. And then, claim that Putin fudged the numbers to look like people support it. It can't be both. If results were faked, they would show people's support.

 

[Borachio]

Dunno.

I'm going by this:

Official Kremlin results: 97 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 83 percent, and 82 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.

President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.

I'm taking the official Kremlin results as the fudge.

 

[red_elk]

Independent polls show that Putin simply didn't need to fudge anything:

Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%).
...
For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).

In Russia proper, the public also sees the matter as closed. More than eight-in-ten Russians (84%) think the March 16th referendum was fair and even more (89%) say Kyiv ought to validate the results, according to a new Pew Research survey in Russia, conducted among 1,000 randomly selected adults between April 4-20.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08...rnance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

What you think about these results?

 

[Borachio]

I don't know. I do know the referendum was put together hastily after the de facto annexation.

The referendum was regarded as illegitimate by most countries including all European Union members, the United States and Canada because of the events surrounding it[7] including the plebiscite being held while the peninsula was occupied by Russian soldiers.[8] Thirteen members of the United Nations Security Council voted in favor of a resolution declaring the referendum invalid, but Russia vetoed it and China abstained.[9][10] A United Nations General Assembly resolution was later adopted, by a vote of 100 in favor vs. 11 against with 58 abstentions, which declared the referendum invalid and affirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity.[7] The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People called for a boycott of the referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

What do you think of it?

 

[calad]

How I am not surprised very same people are here with their insane opinions supporting dictator Putin and his crimes.

 

[red_elk]

I don't know. I do know the referendum was put together hastily after the de facto annexation.

True. There were obvious political reasons to do that. This is an argument for organizational flaws of referendum and possibly for inaccurate results of it. I can accept that.

But this is not an argument to claim that results were fudged, or that there are no overwhelming support of annexation among Crimeans.

What do you think of it?

I think that Ukraine has become an area of geopolitical rivalry. In February 2014 methods of this rivalry went out of legal field and since then the situation is getting only worse. The problem is that both opponents blame solely each other and not ready for compromises. And that they both are nuclear powers.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't know. I do know the referendum was put together hastily after the de facto annexation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

What do you think of it?

It reminds me of Masada putting an example of lopsided election results in free democracies, such as Northern Ireland.

At any rate, lopsided election results are not necessarily indicative of electoral fraud.

 

[Borachio]

Well, then, you've still to account for the discrepancy between the Human Right's estimate and the official Kremlin figures.

They can't both be correct. To a high degree of accuracy. Which do you choose to accept?

 

[Tahuti]

Well, then, you've still to account for the discrepancy between the Human Right's estimate and the official Kremlin figures.

So? Everyone who wants to discredit the 'wrong' side will use lopsided election results against them, provided they are hypocritical enough. There is no reason why anyone should trust a NGO above a government. I haven't seen their methodology, or them doing the job, so I can't judge whether they are right or not.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How I am not surprised very same people are here with their insane opinions supporting dictator Putin and his crimes.

Insanity in the first place is to see people die and country being destroyed. I havnt seem any of that in takover of Crimea but there was a lot of it in many places where uncle Sam put his foot or send his drones.

 

[red_elk]

Well, then, you've still to account for the discrepancy between the Human Right's estimate and the official Kremlin figures.

They can't both be correct. To a high degree of accuracy. Which do you choose to accept?

It's unclear where "Human Right's" results are taken from. All what we have is a website of organization called "A president's council for human rights and development of civil society".
Which contains text about voters turnout in Crimea estimated as 30%-50% and the other results of similar accuracy. This can't be qualified as report about referendum results.

I would stick to results of several independent polls conducted in Crimea in last year. Organized by Russian as well as foreign research centers. They have quite similar results - lower than official, but still overwhelming support of around 90% of Crimeans.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, then, you've still to account for the discrepancy between the Human Right's estimate and the official Kremlin figures.

They can't both be correct. To a high degree of accuracy. Which do you choose to accept?

I choose to look at how one reflects a majority and the other reflects a larger majority but both ultimately produce the same conclusion...which given the historical circumstances and demographics of Crimea is a conclusion that would not be surprising. A majority of people in Crimea would rather be Russian citizens than Ukrainian citizens, and said so.

Bottom line, state lines do not necessarily translate well as national borders. Thinking that the USSR could be broken up into independent nations along the former state boundaries without adjustment was shortsighted.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The Russians did it again. It was reported yesterday that, on two separate occasions in February, Tupolev bombers crossed through commercial air routes around Ireland, coming within 12 miles of the coast and forcing Irish air traffic control to ground flights, reroute others, and call the RAF for help. A flight of Typhoons went out to tell the bombers to frack off. I guess this is just becoming routine now.