UN Security Council Session on Ukraine - Latest updates

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: spy66

No, they dont. If you know someone who is a navy seal or of that Caliber. They can confirm what i am saying.

I do know people from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and guess what they all walk just the same.

I think your trying to say that they are trained differently yes, but when they walk they do it like any other human being. The military doesn't change the way people walk.

What ever. As i said before this is above Your know how.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
If NATO were an offensive organization why haven't they invaded Russia? If NATO was an offensive organization why did they offer Russia membership at one time?

This is often ignored by the Pro-Russia crowd.

Russia was offered membership and even when they declined, they were given preferential treatment and a seat in Brussels to forge a closer relationship. NATO has done nothing but be accommodating to Russia and it was going fine until Putin took the reigns.

a reply to: spy66

What ever. As i said before this is above Your know how.

And what exactly is above my know how?

The fact that the military doesn't change how a person walks and they don't make you walk in a special way unless your marching, and in your video he wasn't marching now was he?

So you can't follow up your they walk differently with anything of substance so it is above my know how...why is your reply not surprising?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: spy66

What ever. As i said before this is above Your know how.

And what exactly is above my know how?

The fact that the military doesn't change how a person walks and they don't make you walk in a special way unless your marching, and in your video he wasn't marching now was he?

So you can't follow up your they walk differently with anything of substance so it is above my know how...why is your reply not surprising?

You dont know much about the US military do you?

The US marines are adapted to have a specific attitude, The US navy seal are adapted to have a specific attidute and so on.

You dont know this do you. You wouldnt know how to see the differnece between a US marine and a Navy seal would you. Because their attitue are exactly the same. How much of a fool are you?

I am just asking.

originally posted by: Riouz
I am no linguist

but I would put his accent as north east England maybe midlands

,,,,,,

riouz

You could have that guy in the vid with a sworn statement and papers saying that and they would still say its a american speaking.

This is the topic:

UN Security Council Session on Ukraine - Latest updates

Discussing other topics and bickering will stop now......
You are responsible for your own posts.





do not reply to this post

originally posted by: all2human
Russia isn't going to put up with an offensive organization like NATO on it's doorstep.

They have since the 1950's and they will now.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Er, no, it doesn't work like that.

You can't draw a line in the sand and say, "Well, from 1914 it was Russian and we should ignore the previous 500 years of history for the region just because it makes me look daft"....

With that line of thinking, Scotland doesn't exist, neither does Wales, Ireland should still be part of the UK, as should Canada and Australia, France should still be in control of Morroco, Tunisia and large chunks of sub-Saharan Africa, we should still have 1/3rd of Africa and Hong Kong...

See where I am going?

Stop going back so far? That almost sounded like a desperate plea....

"Stop going back so far... My argument is blown wide open if you don't conform to the narrow definitions I have laid out"

So what way DOES it work then ??

Talk about desperate plea, like an actual law court has the final say.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia has been the prime influence on Ukraine foreign policy for the entire history of any of our lives.
Reason things have escalated is because U.S. provocateurs have stepped in and started making overtures towards Ukraine. Russian hand is forced by attempt to mess with Russian commodity trading through Ukraine with Europe.
Oil prices being tanked because of CSG in USA reducing demand domestically which affects relationship with Saudi Arabia. So USA provocateurs mess with European market to rekindle demand for oil and push Russia out for Arab partners.

a reply to: MarxMarvellous

That's crap..

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and can decide itself on how they conduct their affairs. Russia has absolutely no business telling Ukraine what their foreign policy will be let alone telling them what form of government they must adopt.

a reply to: MarxMarvellous

Russia has been the prime influence on Ukraine foreign policy for the entire history of any of our lives.

So your life ended in 91, because that's when Russia lost it's influence over Ukraine...you know when they became sovereign.

And you do know what sovereign means correct?

Reason things have escalated is because U.S. provocateurs have stepped in and started making overtures towards Ukraine.

Yes why not just forget the fact Russia gave then president Yanukovych an ultimatum of forgetting the EU and come to Russia or lose all trade with them...in fact that was the last straw for the Ukraine people which is why they protested in the first place. Although the corruption he was into didn't help either.

Russian hand is forced by attempt to mess with Russian commodity trading through Ukraine with Europe.

Russia forced it's own hand as UKraine was never going to stop trade with Russia after joining the EU, because that was just a reason Russia gave so that they could do what they have done in UKraine.

So USA provocateurs mess with European market to rekindle demand for oil and push Russia out for Arab partners.

Why not just blame the US, as Russia is just an innocent victim in all this...I think my signature says it all about Russia.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Thanks for the update.

I have no respect for the U.N.
The U.N. was formed dedicated to establishing and
maintaining world peace, however there have been
more wars around the globe since the U.N. was
established then all the wars put together in the
entire human history prior.

Rebel 5

Here is the link for todays meeting - Monday January 26th 2015

webtv.un.org...

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: Xcathdra
Thanks for the update.

I have no respect for the U.N.
The U.N. was formed dedicated to establishing and
maintaining world peace, however there have been
more wars around the globe since the U.N. was
established then all the wars put together in the
entire human history prior.

Rebel 5

Really, let's look at the facts shall we. Wars prior to UN (after cleaning up the list here en.wikipedia.org... removing the ones that are not a war or invasion and removing duplicates):

World War II (1939–1945)
Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
Chinese Civil War (1927–1949)
Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1922)
Third Anglo-Afghan War (1919)
World War I (1914–1918)
United States occupation of Veracruz (1914)
Mexican Revolution (1910–1920)
Philippine–American War (1899–1912)
Chilean Civil War of 1891 (1891)
Mahdist War (1881–1889)
Aceh War (1873–1914)
Dungan revolt (1862–77)
American Civil War (1861–1865)
Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864)
First Opium War (1839–1842)
First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–1842)
Ragamuffin War (1835–1845)
Shaka's conquests (1816–1828)
Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815)
Seven Years' War (1756–1763)
Third Northern War (1700–1721)
Great Turkish War (1683–1699)
Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1651)
Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)
Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty (1616–1662)
Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)
French Wars of Religion (Huguenot Wars) (1562–1598)
German Peasants' War (1524–1525)
Conquests of Mehmed II 'the Conqueror' (1451-1481)
Conquests of Tamerlane (1370–1405)
Albigensian Crusade (1208–1259)
Mongol conquests (1206–1324)
An Lushan Rebellion (755–763)
Three Kingdoms War (184–280)
Gallic Wars (58–50 BC)

The list on that site seem to be incomplete. There are some that are missing from that list, including the templar wars and the 100 - year war. Feel free to let me know which ones that are missing.

Here is the list of the wars after UN was formed (may be incomplete as well):

Syrian Civil War (2011–present)
Second Ivorian Civil War (2010–2011)
Russia–Georgia war (2008)
War in Darfur (2003–present)
Iraq War/Third Persian Gulf War (2003–2011)
War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
Six-Day War (2000)
Kargil War (1999)
Second Congo War/Great War of Africa (1998–2003)
Republic of the Congo Civil War (1997–1999)
Second Burundian Civil War (1993–2005)
War of Transnistria (1992)
Algerian Civil War (1991–2002)
1991–92 South Ossetia War (1991–1992)
1991 uprisings in Iraq (1991) Not familiar with this one. Civil war?
Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–2001)
Western New Guinea (1984–) - Have to read up on this one, not sure if it qualifies as war.
Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)
Iran–Iraq War/First Persian Gulf War (1980–1988)
Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–1989)
Iranian Revolution (1978–1979) - May not qualify as war.
Bangladesh Liberation War (1971)
Biafra War (1967-1970)
Mozambican War of Independence (1964–1974)
Vietnam War/Second Indochina War (1955–1975)
Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962)
Korean War (1950–1953)
First Indochina War (1946–1954)


36 wars before UN vs 28 wars after UN was formed.

a reply to: pompel9

Wars since 1900

Wars and Causalties 20th, 21st Centuries

a reply to: rebelv

The intent of the United Nations was to act as a forum of redress between countries. It allows countries at odds with each other to discuss those issues in a forum where a peaceful settlement may be found.

With that said the UN is not a democratic institution and does not take the place of sovereign governments. The UN is not meant to act as a secondary form of government to a national authority.

We know this because of Chapter 7 article 51 of the UN Charter.

a reply to: rebelv

Not remotely true and even if it was, far less people have died than before anyway.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rebelv

The intent of the United Nations was to act as a forum of redress between countries. It allows countries at odds with each other to discuss those issues in a forum where a peaceful settlement may be found.

With that said the UN is not a democratic institution and does not take the place of sovereign governments. The UN is not meant to act as a secondary form of government to a national authority.

We know this because of Chapter 7 article 51 of the UN Charter.

I'm not in disagreement with you. I was just pointing out
that it was supposed to replace The League of Nations
which was definitely formed to prevent another World War,
and definitely failed.

The symbol of the U.N. has a Swastika cleverly disguised with
in the logo, so that should tell people something.

Also, they have a U.N. Charter for Alice Bailey and her
publishing company 'Lucis Trust" which was originally
named 'Lucifer Trust"

There is a U.N. Radio show (I think everyday) that teaches
people about Alice Bailey (A Theosophist) and her teaching
from numerous books she wrote claiming to have channeled
a higher being (who obviously would be Lucifer right?)

I have heard Bailey is the mother of the modern New Age
movement, and apparently the official religion of The
United Nations.

Thanks again for your post

Rebel 5