88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Who is "we"?
It does though!
Burns just was just in Istanbul the day before last telling Russia to knock it off even
Russia's Invasion of Ukraine (Official Thread)
- Thread starter newarkhiphop
- Start date
Who is "we"?
It does though!
Burns just was just in Istanbul the day before last telling Russia to knock it off even
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
WATCH: Secretary Austin, General Milley echo Polish assessment of missile strike
At the Pentagon, Austin said the U.S. has confidence in Poland's early assessment, but wants to let the investigation "play out." He also said that Russia bears responsibility for the incident because of its invasion of neighboring Ukraine.
www.pbs.org
Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Out of curiosity, why were you supporting Russia in the first 2 weeks of the war?
What the hell?
I think he prefers authoritarianism and fascism to liberalism but won't live in Russia because of the antisemitism and pogroms or something like that
At least he's honest
Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
I think he prefers authoritarianism and fascism to liberalism but won't live in Russia because of the antisemitism and pogroms or something like that
At least he's honest
If it was up to me, I'd ship all these Russia loving fools to Moscow.
I posted the Kargil War and I was right. Your take is nonsense and doesn't remote align with the facts.
1. Pakistan has literally ZERO case to Kashmir other than invading by military force (which you've quite clearly established is bad). As pathetic as it was, Russia's vote in Crimea is more than Pakistan has ever had to claim in the case of Kashmir. The leaders of princely states were given a choice to join Pakistan, India, or remain independent, and Hari Singh (whose family had ruled Kashmir for over 100 years), chose India. What other case has been made?
2. The Kashmir matter has NOT been settled, that's why they went to fukking war over it in 2000, 1971, 1965, and 1949. You falsely claimed the line had been settled for 70 years when the line was moved dramatically in 1971 and was breached before and after then as well. In India it's fukking illegal to even possess a map that shows any Pakistani claim to Kashmir.
3. Even if you wanted to try to juelz your way out of the Kargil War, the Bangladesh Liberation War destroys your claims completely because the Line of Control moved extensively during that war and was dramatically different after the war ended than where it started, proving that it wasn't static and settled. And you purposely ignore that because you're trying to win an internet argument rather than giving a shyt about the truth.
lol at trying to use Desai and Vahed. That book has been discussed in detail on this board already, it's just a contrarian friendly hit piece, not a serious piece of historical research. For every out-of-context quote they provide there are five that prove the opposite case which they ignore (as has repeatedly been pointed out about the book). And you included shyt in there that was completely irrelevant to our discussion, it's like you're just trying to find bad-looking quotes to throw against the wall and see what sticks.
Ireland had already been granted Home Rule without any violence at all, they did violently fight to extend that to full independence but it was not remotely the same situation as India.
Why is the Ireland example definitive, even though Ireland is nothing like India, but every time I bring up Kenya you completely ignore it? No one said violent revolutions never work, just that they work less often and frequently have poor aftereffects - in the Irish case, evidenced by Sinn Fein's association with violent forces in the first war of independence reflecting continued association with violence during The Troubles, resulting in decades more of violence and tyranny and thousands more dead on the island.
I literally told you exactly who.
Once again proving that you don't even understand the timeline, India already had its freedom well in hand before the USA gave two shyts about "forcing" Britain to do anything. Britain had given up zero other colonies in the 25 years that Gandhi worked to get them independence, nor in the years immediately afterwards - the other British relinquishing of colonies that followed India didn't come until more decades of concentrated effort (Ghana, for example, was the first African colony to gain freedom and that was a full decade after India - whereas the Mau Mau were violently repressed in the time period after Indian independence and Kenya didn't get their freedom until 16 years later).
Churchill was sacked after WW2 for a reason. He was a relic of a different age.
Suez Crisis - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
The time where India got their independence WAR Churchill's age. This is just a blatant demonstration that you have no clue when Indian Independence was won, thinking that it happened in 1947 when the final approval was granted and not in the 1920s and 1930s when India gained self-determination with independence clearly to follow afterwards.
You read Chenoweth's work on the past history of nonviolent resistant movements from 1900 to 2006? Because without that or some study similar to that, your evaluation of the likelihood of future movements to succeed is useless. It's like someone who has never studied the history of wars trying to come in and make definitive statements in February about who is going to win in Russia vs. Ukraine, just because they have an ideology they want to support.
LOL at you now trying to claim that various European governments are too different to compare, yet just a few paragraph ago you were wanting to claim that Ireland and India were completely comparable, as if the British viewed the Irish (who they had already handed home rule without any violence at all) just like they viewed the Indians.
It obviously would have been though.
You very subtlety ethered your own argument. Russia violently invading Ukraine was a HUGE miscalculation, they would have been 100x better off in the short-term and long-term both trying a Donbas version of the 2014 protests that got Yanukovych out of the paint. It wouldn't have worked in the same manner or with the same speed as the Maidan Revolution did, but the chances of long-term success would have been far greater and the short-term pain for Russia far less, not to mention a million times better for the people involved.
Small nations often choose better strategic tactics than large nations, even when the large nations have the means to employ them, due to hubris and power. It's a pretty pop psych essay but it reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell chapter regarding why only underdogs run a full-court press - talented teams could slaughter opponents that way, but instead try to rely on their talent cause they can't see the long game. Hell, the entire book is about that and points out numerous incidents (including British actions in The Troubles, and examples from the CRM) where the lure of overwhelming power blinds the powerful from being more strategic.
The feudalistic undertones of princes bequeathing lands to other nations that people actually reside in aside, India never at any point controlled all of Kashmir in its entire history. Conversely Crimea was considered Ukrainian since 1954 and it’s sole sovereign possession since 1991 where the majority of Crimeans voted to become apart of Ukraine and guarantees of sovereignty by Russia since.
The UN official position on Kashmir is a vote should be held. The UN’s official position on Crimea is Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
I think that’s all that needs to be said.
There have been various conflicts but the line has remained unchanged for 70 years.
The Line of Control (LoC) is a military control line between the Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir—a line which does not constitute a legally recognized international boundary, but serves as the de facto border. It was established as part of the Simla Agreementat the end of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Both nations agreed to rename the ceasefire line as the "Line of Control" and pledged to respect it without prejudice to their respective positions.[4] Apart from minor details, the line is roughly the same as the original 1949 cease-fire line.
What exactly is your argument here?
Neither here nor there. Kashmir was never under Indias sole possession and my stipulations were that the defending country had its territory seized and relinquished control despite having superiority on the battlefield. It’s a non starter from the beginning and I don’t know why smith are insistent on arguing it.
I included the quotes to show that Ghandi was a studious member of the empire and only altered his outlook once he was repeatedly rebuffed by the empire he wanted to serve. Ghandi was not a full blown revolutionary until Britain was throughly destructed with 2 world wars and the decline of the empire.
Ireland wander granted home rule until 1920. The Irish was of independence began in 1919 and arguably early during the Easter Rising in 1916. The British dangled home rule to get the Irish to fight for them same as they did the Indians. The Irish were wise to this fact and put the stamp on things.
I’m sure the Irish would take the civil war and troubles over the multiple genocides and pogroms that have gone on in the Indian subcontinent since their independence. Sinn Fein remand a popular party to this day.
Roosevelt pressured Churchill heavily over relinquishing control over India during WW2 and US politicians harangued Churchill for the Bengali famine.
Britain was coming off a World War that drained its coffers and its citizenry and Europe at large were impoverished and relying on US aid. The fact that you are trying to insinuated that a world war where Britain came supremely close to losing its entire 200 year old empire and largest in world history in a few years whilst being reduced to a 2nd rate power had no effect on its abilities to maintain its colonies is astounding.
I predicted Russia would lose the Ukraine war because I read the after action reports after the Georgian war of drunk Russian soldiers and inability to establish air control.
I critiqued the article you asked me to read as he made several historical analysis errors such as comparing Denmark to Poland without accounting for German attitudes towards the population as well as framing the conflict in Ukraine was a low level affair. No where in the work does he predict a full scale Russian invasion which makes yours and his analysis mute.
No I compared specifically Denmark and Poland in the eye of the Nazi’s. One being considered a brother country and easily ruled and the other was planned to be turned into a giant slave plantation where a majority of the population was to exterminated outright or worked to death.
Comparing them is laughably bad an renders the entire article unreadable. But I wanted to humor you.
Ireland and India were considered racial inferiors by the British. The Irish suffered genocide and famines just as the Indians did. By the 20th century Britain as racist as it was was no where near the racial policies of the Nazi’s.
Y'all can't go back and forth in another thread or pm or something?
You really just said that shyt.
Try and repeat that to ANY historian of that era and proceed to be mocked and laughed at.
At first I thought the constant factual errors and historical misunderstandings were due to ignorance, but at this point you've doubled down on so many of them that it has to be either a conscious or subconscious defense mechanism. You can't just admit you were wrong on any one ridiculous claim because it would also mean you were wrong the other 12 times you either repeated the claim or used it to buttress something else. The entire effort is looking pointless because you're arguing in bad faith.
You didn't say, "If Gandhi had been more serious about independence earlier in his life, the British would have killed him." Your exact words were "if Ghandi was born in 1860 he would’ve been dealt with," as if that was completely different era or some shyt. You clearly didn't realize that Gandhi was born in 1869 and was already actively opposing the British in the early 1890s and was already a notorious figure with huge White mobs trying to kill him by 1893. You made it clear that you thought Gandhi didn't fight for independence until after WW2 was over and didn't look like a serious threat to Britain until the empire was already dying, so you probably thought he was born near the end of the century or some shyt. It's a waste of time going back and forth with someone so disingenuous as to claim that a 9-year shift in Gandhi's birthday was the difference between him being wiped off the map immediately or him having a 55-year career of massive agitation against the British spanning two continents.
I had to repeat it. That's in the running for the stupidest thing you've said this entire conversation, and that's saying something.
Half of your claims rely on the ridiculous position that Indian Independence was some sort of sudden thing that happened in 1947, ignoring that from Gandhi's side it was basically inevitable from the Purna Swaraj and Salt Satyagraha in 1930 and from the British side was clearly inevitable from 1937 if not earlier. Like I said, the breakout of World War II actually delayed Indian independence and you're making this ridiculous claim that it somehow spawned it.
The Salt Satyagraha followed immediately after that, with literally tens of millions of Indians engaged in nationwide civil disobedience, protests, riots, even subjected to mass imprisonment and major massacres, ending in the Irwin-Gandhi Accords, but according to you Gandhi wasn't a revolutionary until nearly 20 years later.
That's all happening over a decade before you claim Gandhi finally "became a real revolutionary" and started fighting for independence. The British's OWN GOVERNORS were already giving up on holding the country in the early 30s. You were talking complete nonsense with those piles of post-WW2 bullshyt. All the biggest moves came in 1930-1935 and were cemented into history when Congress dominated the elections of 1937 and basically took power of the country. Everything after that was a cleanup act, no one with a clue doubted that India was getting its independence. And you were trying to claim that none of that happened until 10 years later, and only then because of WW2.
The rest of your post is full of similar misinterpretations, errors, deflections, and straight ridiculous comments (I really loved it when you bytched about a prince being the one who handed over Kashmir, as if Crimea hadn't been handed over by a genocidal communist government that had just wiped the Tartars off the land first, or when you once again tried to claim that the British viewed Ireland and India the same but Denmark and Poland were way too different from each other).
That's my last comment to you on this subject. You don't understand Kashmir, you don't understand Indian Independence, you don't understand nonviolent resistance, and when faced with the potential to learn something, instead you just keep moving the goalposts and quote-mining anything you can find that you think will deflect the arguments rather than ever admit you were wrong.
Last edited:
Russian airbase in Crimea hit.
