Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the OP include a picture of James "Parking Break" Yeager?

I had never heard of this man before, but I'm glad I now know of him. Googling his name has revealed many hilarious things.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
There are some anti-semitic events taking place in France, I see it in the news from time to time.

Antisemitism in France has been a significant thing since WWII, though I would guess much of the current trend is fueled by increasing levels of xenophobia due to Arab immigration, and the Arab immigrants themselves.

I'm calling bs on this. This reeks of a propaganda piece or orchestrated scheme rather than a genuine occurrence. You can smell it 2500 km away here in Luxembourg.

It definitely bs.
The leaflet uses the wrong stamp, and it identifies Pushilin as 'the people's governor', and according to himself, nobody has ever called him that before, and he isn't even elected as the leaflet claims.

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the OP include a picture of James "Parking Brake" Yeager?

James "Ditch Diver" Yeager coined the fotime phrase, "It's time to start killing people" during one of his YouTube rants (for which he later apologized after they took away his CCW permit).

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the OP include a picture of James "Parking Brake" Yeager?

James "Ditch Diver" Yeager coined the fotime phrase, "It's time to start killing people" during one of his YouTube rants (for which he later apologized after they took away his CCW permit).

LOL I thought he was more famous for the footage of him bailing out on the only fire fight hes ever been in.

 easysauce wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the OP include a picture of James "Parking Brake" Yeager?

James "Ditch Diver" Yeager coined the fotime phrase, "It's time to start killing people" during one of his YouTube rants (for which he later apologized after they took away his CCW permit).

LOL I thought he was more famous for the footage of him bailing out on the only fire fight hes ever been in.

Hah yeah amongst other things, such as putting his photographer in front of a hot firing line.

 easysauce wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the OP include a picture of James "Parking Brake" Yeager?

James "Ditch Diver" Yeager coined the fotime phrase, "It's time to start killing people" during one of his YouTube rants (for which he later apologized after they took away his CCW permit).

LOL I thought he was more famous for the footage of him bailing out on the only fire fight hes ever been in.

To be fair, however you may feel about Yeager, if you pay close attention to the video in question, while he does exit the vehicle and egress to the median, he doesn't actually bail from the firefight. There are some good analysis videos out there that explain it pretty well. The biggest mistake he made is that he exited the car because he thought the vehicle was disabled, when it was actually just in neutral.

 Hordini wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the OP include a picture of James "Parking Brake" Yeager?

James "Ditch Diver" Yeager coined the fotime phrase, "It's time to start killing people" during one of his YouTube rants (for which he later apologized after they took away his CCW permit).

LOL I thought he was more famous for the footage of him bailing out on the only fire fight hes ever been in.

To be fair, however you may feel about Yeager, if you pay close attention to the video in question, while he does exit the vehicle and egress to the median, he doesn't actually bail from the firefight. There are some good analysis videos out there that explain it pretty well. The biggest mistake he made is that he exited the car because he thought the vehicle was disabled, when it was actually just in neutral.

I don't want to derail this too far, but I will say this having served in the military...

If you're the only person doing the "right thing" and everybody else is doing the "wrong thing," then you're probably doing the wrong thing.

Step 1. Invade foreign country and turn them into a part of your country
Step 2. Force All jews to register

Pretty sure I saw something on the history channel about how this all played out last time....they tried the "ignore it and it will go away" solution back then too....

 ironicsilence wrote:
Step 1. Invade foreign country and turn them into a part of your country

Yeah, that is bad! At least when our civilized societies invade foreign countries, we do not pretend they are part of our country. We do put up some puppet government to do our work for us, it is way better!

That has to be the dumbest photogapher I have ever seen

 Jihadin wrote:
That has to be the dumbest photogapher I have ever seen

He used to be a photographer. Then he took a bullet to the knee

 ironicsilence wrote:
Step 1. Invade foreign country and turn them into a part of your country
Step 2. Force All jews to register

Pretty sure I saw something on the history channel about how this all played out last time....they tried the "ignore it and it will go away" solution back then too....

I suppose threads about Putin's government are just giving themselves the Godwin treatment on their own now without us. Pity. =(

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
Step 1. Invade foreign country and turn them into a part of your country
Step 2. Force All jews to register

Pretty sure I saw something on the history channel about how this all played out last time....they tried the "ignore it and it will go away" solution back then too....

I suppose threads about Putin's government are just giving themselves the Godwin treatment on their own now without us. Pity. =(

OR you could just support neo nazis in an attempt to topple a legitimate government with a violent and bloody revolution, fully convinced that if you topple the capital the rest of the country falls in line. When that doesn't happen, blame the country that actually stabilizes the situation by supporting what most of the country really wants in an almost non violent manner. Then spread Nazi type propaganda about them.......and still fail.

This is really one of the most hypocritical actions the west has ever taken.

Meh, I can't stand Putin's mock government, so I'm biased as hell over this situation. The whole thing's just an exercise in appeasement. If things in Russia don't change sooner or later the West's relations with it are going off a cliff unfortunately (then again, we really don't give two sods about any moral complications when it comes to keeping the peace. As long as nobody's launching nukes and keeping "civilised" the little things can slide in the big picture of things). I suppose the real world isn't a place for idealism, but isn't it nice to at least respect the pretence. =P

For the life of me. I have not heard of serious abuse on the Jews in FDR/Russia. I'm under the impression he is totally against anti-semitism.

Apperantly no group has claimed responsibility and a few Jews that actually reported to the location to find out what is going on just found folks that had no idea what was going on either.

Sounds like either a twisted joke or propaganda.

You know someone has balls when they play practical jokes in the middle of the revolution

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Why does the OP include a picture of James "Parking Brake" Yeager?

James "Ditch Diver" Yeager coined the fotime phrase, "It's time to start killing people" during one of his YouTube rants (for which he later apologized after they took away his CCW permit).

LOL I thought he was more famous for the footage of him bailing out on the only fire fight hes ever been in.

To be fair, however you may feel about Yeager, if you pay close attention to the video in question, while he does exit the vehicle and egress to the median, he doesn't actually bail from the firefight. There are some good analysis videos out there that explain it pretty well. The biggest mistake he made is that he exited the car because he thought the vehicle was disabled, when it was actually just in neutral.

I don't want to derail this too far, but I will say this having served in the military...

If you're the only person doing the "right thing" and everybody else is doing the "wrong thing," then you're probably doing the wrong thing.

I get what you're saying, but I don't know that it really applies in this case. Everybody else stayed in or around their soft skinned vehicles which were all sitting in the middle of the kill zone. Yeager is one of the first, if not the first, to return fire. He then egresses to the median, where he has better cover/concealment, and provides security. I'm not saying he does everything right, but I don't think what he did was wrong, nor was it bailing from the fight. He was still perfectly capable of engaging the enemy from the median.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Meh, I can't stand Putin's mock government, so I'm biased as hell over this situation. The whole thing's just an exercise in appeasement. If things in Russia don't change sooner or later the West's relations with it are going off a cliff unfortunately (then again, we really don't give two sods about any moral complications when it comes to keeping the peace. As long as nobody's launching nukes and keeping "civilised" the little things can slide in the big picture of things). I suppose the real world isn't a place for idealism, but isn't it nice to at least respect the pretence. =P

OK, I'm still not sure how Russia is labeled the bad guy here. The west over reaches into Russia's back yard and sows the seeds of revolution, Russia keeps said revolution from turning into a Syrian scale civil war, and yet somehow Russia is still the bad guy. This makes sense in what world?

Lets look at the track record and you tell me whose policies need to change. Who in the last 20 years has been traipsing around the entire globe, invading countries (uninvited by the way) and toppling governments by force?

Putin has taken a country that was on the brink of collapse not too long ago and single handedly brought it back to a level of respect. In this same period we have seen Western civilization take a moral, political and economic nose dive.

Sounds like sour grapes laced with hypocrisy to me.

The guy is not perfect, but there are sayings about people in glass houses and cleaning up your own back yard first.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Lets look at the track record and you tell me whose policies need to change. Who in the last 20 years has been traipsing around the entire globe, invading countries (uninvited by the way) and toppling governments by force?

Lots of countries, including Russia. If the west had moved in military forces to protect the Ukrainian people from the now ousted government who had shown few qualms about killing its own people you may have a (small) point. As it is though Russia is sending in troops to protect 'Russian speakers' from so far non existent violence by the Ukrainian government while conveniently destabilising the entire country in the process. They are doing themselves no favours by their almost comical insistence that the new Ukrainian government are fascists and bandits. Crimea was a blatant land grab, although its populations would have moved to join Russia anyway, if Russia had simply waited for a real and genuine referendum rather than one thrown together at short notice then none of the political fallout would have happened. Donetsk is shaping up to be Crimea 2 but with a much smaller pro Russian population.

Putin is trying to resurrect the USSR, albeit on different political lines. The problem is that he also seems to be recreating the some of the critical structural flaws that brought it down in the first place, if (or more likely when) Russia's economy tanks the whole thing may well fall apart.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Meh, I can't stand Putin's mock government, so I'm biased as hell over this situation. The whole thing's just an exercise in appeasement. If things in Russia don't change sooner or later the West's relations with it are going off a cliff unfortunately (then again, we really don't give two sods about any moral complications when it comes to keeping the peace. As long as nobody's launching nukes and keeping "civilised" the little things can slide in the big picture of things). I suppose the real world isn't a place for idealism, but isn't it nice to at least respect the pretence. =P

OK, I'm still not sure how Russia is labeled the bad guy here. The west over reaches into Russia's back yard and sows the seeds of revolution, Russia keeps said revolution from turning into a Syrian scale civil war, and yet somehow Russia is still the bad guy. This makes sense in what world?

In a world where they take advantage of Ukraine's instability to annex parts of a sovereign nation. For all the bullgak moves the US has made, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the 51st and 52nd states.

Lots of countries, including Russia.

Really? What countries has Russia taken over that they were not specifically requested by the legitimate government? What areas has Russia taken by force, I mean when people vote to be part of Russia that seams a bit more legitimate than taking over a government through bloody revolution like happened in Kiev.

I can give you a long list of countries the west has invaded and taken over where no requests for help have been made.

if Russia had simply waited for a real and genuine referendum rather than one thrown together at short notice then none of the political fallout would have happened.

Or if the western backed Ukrainian revolutionaries had just waited for the coming elections, we would not be in this affair at all. Unless of course they were afraid they were going to lose those elections, so why go through the process? Easier to just throw they country into a bloody civil war, right?

As it is though Russia is sending in troops to protect 'Russian speakers' from so far non existent violence

So the violent uprising in Kiev that saw more people killed than anything the Russians have done doesn't count?

In a world where they take advantage of Ukraine's instability to annex parts of a sovereign nation. For all the bullgak moves the US has made, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the 51st and 52nd states.

You mean the instability created, backed and funded by Western forces? You do realize that the instability was created by Western forces, financed and backed by the EU and the US state department, to topple the duly elected government of a sovereign nation, this is FACT not speculation. Its also why the West was so quick to recognize the legitimacy of the new government, even though it appears that many Ukrainians do not. This was not a popular movement, even the military is not really backing the new government.

I'm sure if you ask the people of Ukraine they are much better of with what is happening than anything that happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia did not just roll into the Crimea and say "Mine". The president of Ukraine requested that they come, then the people of Crimea requested to be part of Russia.

Just give this article a read http://news.yahoo.com/special-report-u-made-putin-problem-worse-185958789.html

It pretty well sums up why Russia may be suspicious of the west. Russia has tried very hard to work with the west in the last 20 years, even supporting US actions, however they have been shown absolutely no respect in return. It is not Russia that has lit the flames of a new cold war, The problem is the west has never lost the mentality.

Andrew, I've spent time in Kyrgyzstan during a couple of their elections (and revolutions), and I can tell you with first hand knowledge that Russia is hard at work in everyone of those countries that were former satellites, doing everything they can to get the countries back in their fold.

Everything from buying politicians, to using terrorism.

The "legitimate" governments that you are referring to, are only legitimate in name, nothing more. Every other way they are already owned and controlled by Russia.

 djones520 wrote:
Andrew, I've spent time in Kyrgyzstan during a couple of their elections

Were you deployed during the Clinton administration? I know there was a push to deploy vowels back then.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Andrew, I've spent time in Kyrgyzstan during a couple of their elections

Were you deployed during the Clinton administration? I know there was a push to deploy vowels back then.

I was only 16 when the Clinton admin ended.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Lots of countries, including Russia.

Really? What countries has Russia taken over that they were not specifically requested by the legitimate government? What areas has Russia taken by force, I mean when people vote to be part of Russia that seams a bit more legitimate than taking over a government through bloody revolution like happened in Kiev.

Do you see the red cities? Those were the areas that originally became Russia when the Norse took over. The Norse invasion was requested by the local tribes, so that was legitimate. But that is one of the only times in history that a Russian invasion was requested. Everything beyond that has been taken by force.
Russia has waged more wars than most nations in the world combined. To suggest Russia has never taken over areas by force is quite hilarious. Russia did come to occupy one-eighth of the world by being invited...

As to Crimea, that certainly was more legitimate than what happened in Kiev. At least people got to vote there. But in the end, without Russian force, that referendum would not have been possible, so you could say that Russia has taken the Crimea by force. But in the end, it is for the best. Crimea wants to be part of Russia, Crimea has been part of Russia for centuries.

And a vote where your choices are "become part of Russia" or "become independent from Ukraine" is completely legitimate...

Russia peaceful? Hey Georgia how're you doing? Oh you're sitting playing cars with your pals Chechnya and Moldova? Yeah, how's that working out for you?

Meh, people can defend Russia for its foreign policy on one hand (somehow, I mean they tend to block western powers at every other vote at the UN), and ignore their oppressive domestic policy with the other. =P

Andrew, I've spent time in Kyrgyzstan during a couple of their elections (and revolutions), and I can tell you with first hand knowledge that Russia is hard at work in everyone of those countries that were former satellites, doing everything they can to get the countries back in their fold.

Everything from buying politicians, to using terrorism.

The "legitimate" governments that you are referring to, are only legitimate in name, nothing more. Every other way they are already owned and controlled by Russia.

Yes, it's called a sphere of influence, that should be respected. However when we look at the history, we can see that the west is constantly trying to push further and further east, what is Russia supposed to do just sit there and let it happen? Are we also to pretend the west does not do exactly the same thing. This time the west just lost the game. I'm not saying espionage doesn't happen. I'm saying in this case the west tried to topple a government that was next to Russia, something they have been doing for a long time. The west agreed to stop pushing east, it has not.

Do you see the red cities? Those were the areas that originally became Russia when the Norse took over. The Norse invasion was requested by the local tribes, so that was legitimate. But that is one of the only times in history that a Russian invasion was requested. Everything beyond that has been taken by force.
Russia has waged more wars than most nations in the world combined. To suggest Russia has never taken over areas by force is quite hilarious. Russia did come to occupy one-eighth of the world by being invited...

As to Crimea, that certainly was more legitimate than what happened in Kiev. At least people got to vote there. But in the end, without Russian force, that referendum would not have been possible, so you could say that Russia has taken the Crimea by force. But in the end, it is for the best. Crimea wants to be part of Russia, Crimea has been part of Russia for centuries.

So since the fall of the Soviet union, please tell me what Russia has taken by force, because that is when this Russia came into existence.

Russia peaceful? Hey Georgia how're you doing? Oh you're sitting playing cars with your pals Chechnya and Moldova? Yeah, how's that working out for you?

Georgia??? I'm sorry, are you speaking of when Russia repelled the invasion of South Ossetia by the Georgian Military?

The facts are when was the last time you saw Russia meddling in the affairs of Europe and America or countries in their respective sphere of influence. You don't really see this happening since the fall of the soviet union. In fact Russia has provided support for western actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past. All Russia ever asked was for the West to respect Russian interests in areas that should be considered Russia's back yard. If the west can't or won't respect Russia's right be the major player in Eastern Europe, I don't really see why Russia has to respect the west attempts to influence those areas at all.

Its too bad, a real opportunity has been blown to bring the East and the West together, but it was no blown by Russia. If you read the article I posted, you can see repeatedly that the west still sees Russia as the Boogie man, or worse than that, unimportant. Russia has tried to play ball, the west are just being dicks.

Meh, people can defend Russia for its foreign policy on one hand (somehow, I mean they tend to block western powers at every other vote at the UN), and ignore their oppressive domestic policy with the other. =P

Why wouldn't Russia block the western powers? Russia has tried to play ball with the west, and has been very helpful, only to watch the west keep moving east and labeling Russia the bad guy. I see no reason for Russia to cooperate anymore.

I can defend Russia's foreign policy, because for the most part is only extends to areas relatively close to Russia and has been nowhere near as violent and bloody as the wests.

For the west to be calling Russia out right now is the pot calling the kettle black

And lets not speak about domestic policy issues. The west has just as many of those.

So basically your argument simply boils down to...

"We do it, so they can as well."

Well sorry, but I don't see us setting up bombs at soccer matches, formenting civil war, etc...

And Russia repelling an invasion of South Ossetia? Oh my god you've gotta learn how to read. Nearly a full month prior to Georgia taking military action against Ossetia, the Ossetians and Russians were attacking Georgia. Georgia villages where shelled, police stations bombed, Georgian friendly politicians were subject to assassination attempts. Months before that, the Russian military was attacking Georgian military assets.

It's obvious whose camp your in, with your selective reading of historical fact.