Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CTV News)   Ukrainian tanks on the move as "pro-Russian" gunmen dig in. The fecal matter has hit the whirling blades of doom, everyone   (ctvnews.ca ) divider line
    More: Followup, Ukrainian, Russians, Oleksandr Turchynov, East Ukraine, Ukrainian tanks, Government of Ukraine, Kyiv, Russian flag  
•       •       •

4723 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2014 at 10:30 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



275 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 01:56:37 PM  

JSTACAT: It isn't serious until the stock markets crash.
That would be the Russian sanctions taking effect.
The west seems to have no idea how their sanctions could backfire.
Russian Bears...


No love for Badgers or Blinders or Blackjacks?
 
2014-04-15 01:58:18 PM  

strobis48z4: i prefer to say "The excrement has hit the airscrew".


the fecal flow has impacted the oxygen oscillator
 
2014-04-15 01:59:10 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: It has been argued that Japan's Imperial ambitions prior to ww2 was the result of Japan getting shafted when they were doling out all the German colonies after the Treaty of Versailles.


How did Japan get shafted? Germany had one Pacific colony that was spun off as an independent nation.

And it was the damned Solomons. All they had was malaria.
 
2014-04-15 01:59:22 PM  

TommyDeuce: JSTACAT: It isn't serious until the stock markets crash.
That would be the Russian sanctions taking effect.
The west seems to have no idea how their sanctions could backfire.
Russian Bears...

No love for Badgers or Blinders or Blackjacks?


wil.to
 
2014-04-15 02:02:27 PM  

mark625: MyRandomName: MindStalker: cheyanne9: [www.bookwormroom.com image 599x799]

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit.  If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

Ummm... 1) it was not always owned by the feds. 2) it was not bought by the feds, the feds used questionable policy to assert rights over the lands. 3) the feds have used said policy to take around 80% of Nevada's state lands. 4) the same desert turtle was moved in order to build a solar plant for Reid's good friend, but apparently too endangered to allow cattle on the same land.

Would you two idiots take that conversation somewhere else please?

Or at least post pics of hot Ukrainian (or Nevadan (shudder)) chicks?


NSFW
 
2014-04-15 02:04:11 PM  

CMYK and PMS: Don't worry folks, Obama has this covered. He is going to set up a twitter account in the Ukraine to make fun of the Russkies. That will show them.


What TF would you have him do?  What would you do in his place.  Be specific, please - no bullshiat about "if he'd have manned up in Syria, Putin would have been cowed." What specifically do you think the President should do to deter the second most powerful military on earth?
 
2014-04-15 02:06:16 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Today: "Meh, it's just the Ukraine. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."
Tomorrow: "Meh, it's just Eastern Europe. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."
Eventually: "Meh, it's just one more unexplained nuclear detonantion in US flyover country. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."

/are good men doing nothing really still good?


You forgot "it's just TV station", "it;s just 3rd term", "it's just talentless attention whores", etc., etc., etc., etc., etc....
 
2014-04-15 02:06:22 PM  

rwhamann: CMYK and PMS: Don't worry folks, Obama has this covered. He is going to set up a twitter account in the Ukraine to make fun of the Russkies. That will show them.

What TF would you have him do?  What would you do in his place.  Be specific, please - no bullshiat about "if he'd have manned up in Syria, Putin would have been cowed." What specifically do you think the President should do to deter the second most powerful military on earth?


Challenge him to a game of of Yahtzee
 
2014-04-15 02:06:31 PM  

danzak: Another "not Russian special forces" local insurgent.  Wonder if he feels threatened:

[fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net image 850x568]


I'm getting confused with Nevada and Ukraine militia. Which one had the horses or were those tanks?
 
2014-04-15 02:07:41 PM  

El Dudereno: Tatterdemalian: Today: "Meh, it's just the Ukraine. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."
Tomorrow: "Meh, it's just Eastern Europe. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."
Eventually: "Meh, it's just one more unexplained nuclear detonantion in US flyover country. Not worth starting a nuclear war over."

/are good men doing nothing really still good?

I'm sure the Ukrainian army would welcome a new volunteer.


A foreign national who doesn't understand orders?
Yeah, no.
 
2014-04-15 02:12:03 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-15 02:26:05 PM  

This text is now purple: All2morrowsparTs: It has been argued that Japan's Imperial ambitions prior to ww2 was the result of Japan getting shafted when they were doling out all the German colonies after the Treaty of Versailles.

How did Japan get shafted? Germany had one Pacific colony that was spun off as an independent nation.

And it was the damned Solomons. All they had was malaria.

 

ShadowKamui: All2morrowsparTs: spawn73: dukeblue219: spawn73: WWII was basicly Europe

... and the Middle East, and North Africa, and SE Asia, and India, China, Japan, Australia...

That's a good point. Whatever Japan had going with China, and partly USA had very little to do with Europe.

Untill Japan started attacking all the Dutch and English colonies of course. But still.

It has been argued that Japan's Imperial ambitions prior to ww2 was the result of Japan getting shafted when they were doling out all the German colonies after the Treaty of Versailles.

Yeah no
Germany had next to nothing in the far east: the Samoan Islands, maybe an 8th of New Guinea and a few lesser islands.

The Japanese Empire pretty much tried to take Korea and make China its biatch from the start of the Meiji Era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_Treaty_of_1876
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_War_%281894-1895%29

They expanded there ambitions to the French and Dutch areas after America and some Europeans started placing embargoes on them for starting the second Sino-Japanese War


Ah No and No:

They also had Shandong in China which was given to the Japanese but were only given Madate over  Palau, Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Marshall Islands.

Japan was aggrieved as they were refused equal racial treatment in the Treaty of Versailles and were not allowed equal free regain in Manchuria as the Americans and British had in latin America and Colonies, respectfiully.
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Richard_J_-Smethurst/3825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_during_World_War_I#Events_of_1919

The Dutch were not  attacked until 15 December 1941 (after the Dutch Pre-emptively declared war on the 8th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign

The Vischy French IndoChina was invaded in September of 1940 because they would not close down their rail connection to China to blockade it not because any embargo on their part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_French_Indochina

The British Hong Kong was attacked on September 8th 1941 starting Hostilities between those nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong
 
2014-04-15 02:28:28 PM  

cheyanne9: mark625: MyRandomName: MindStalker: cheyanne9: [www.bookwormroom.com image 599x799]

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit.  If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

Ummm... 1) it was not always owned by the feds. 2) it was not bought by the feds, the feds used questionable policy to assert rights over the lands. 3) the feds have used said policy to take around 80% of Nevada's state lands. 4) the same desert turtle was moved in order to build a solar plant for Reid's good friend, but apparently too endangered to allow cattle on the same land.

Would you two idiots take that conversation somewhere else please?

Or at least post pics of hot Ukrainian (or Nevadan (shudder)) chicks?

I thought it would have stopped after my single post. but.....
Insofar as the hot chicks, I was thinking Chelsea Clinton, would that work?
She so accomplished and could save the Ukraine just her parents.
Just look at those choppers, send her in to straighten things out.

[maaadddog.files.wordpress.com image 399x266]


So, you're branching out in this thread from posting irrelevant Bundy crap to posting irrelevant Chelsea Clinton crap?
 
2014-04-15 02:33:04 PM  

Shanghai_Flyer: This thread is starting to confuse me...so there are Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms riding cattle from Nevada and having a stand-off with Ukraine and the BLM? Have I got that right? Also desert tortoises on land with gas pipelines to Western Europe?


this ^
 
2014-04-15 02:35:51 PM  
RT has a live blog up. Not exactly a " fair and balanced" site, but good to know how Russia wants this spun. No link, as I'm on my phone, but the link to it is on their front page.
 
2014-04-15 02:38:31 PM  

firefly212: It isn't that simple, for them to be recognized as legal combatants in a state of open war, Russia would have to acknowledge that their actions were at its behest.... that seems unlikely. If Russia cuts them loose and says they were acting on their own, then they are not protected by the Geneva conventions, but would be subject to whatever the local laws are regarding their actions.


That's incorrect:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Prisoners of war

ARTICLE 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.



It doesn't matter if Russia acknowledges them as being under their control or not.  They just have to meet those 4 conditions, which seem easy enough to satisfy.  They're carrying arms openly.  They have those ribbons, and so far they don't seem to have been violent enough to have racked up any major demerits due to not following the laws and customs of war.

That just leaves a commander who is ultimately responsible, and the typical soldier can simply name his local commander and that meets the requirement.
 
2014-04-15 02:46:48 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Ah No and No:

They also had Shandong in China which was given to the Japanese but were only given Madate over  Palau, Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Marshall Islands.

Japan was aggrieved as they were refused equal racial treatment in the Treaty of Versailles and were not allowed equal free regain in Manchuria as the Americans and British had in latin America and Colonies, respectfiully.
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Richard_J_-Smethurst/3825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_during_World_War_I#Events_of_1919


I guess that makes this all better, then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking
 
2014-04-15 02:50:20 PM  

DrBenway: So, you're branching out in this thread from posting irrelevant Bundy crap to posting irrelevant Chelsea Clinton crap?


www.bundyology.com
 
2014-04-15 02:51:01 PM  

spawn73: IamKaiserSoze!!!: This must create almost as big of a farklib boner as Israel being overtaken by Syria

The guy that wanted to put the A-10s into service looks smart compared to you.

I wonder who of you two would come closest to placing Ukraine on a map.


Wouldn't it be easier to place the map under Ukraine, rather than placing Ukraine on the map? Sure, you would have to dig a huge hole, but that's GOT to be easier than picking a country up and placing it carefully on a map, right?
 
2014-04-15 02:52:01 PM  

Shanghai_Flyer: This thread is starting to confuse me...so there are Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms riding cattle from Nevada and having a stand-off with Ukraine and the BLM? Have I got that right? Also desert tortoises on land with gas pipelines to Western Europe?


It's Tard Tuesday. So, yeah.
 
2014-04-15 02:52:04 PM  

Dr. Farkenstein: [img.fark.net image 380x306]


Oh dear, that's much funnier than it probably should be.
 
2014-04-15 02:54:20 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: This text is now purple: All2morrowsparTs: It has been argued that Japan's Imperial ambitions prior to ww2 was the result of Japan getting shafted when they were doling out all the German colonies after the Treaty of Versailles.

How did Japan get shafted? Germany had one Pacific colony that was spun off as an independent nation.

And it was the damned Solomons. All they had was malaria.
 ShadowKamui: All2morrowsparTs: spawn73: dukeblue219: spawn73: WWII was basicly Europe

... and the Middle East, and North Africa, and SE Asia, and India, China, Japan, Australia...

That's a good point. Whatever Japan had going with China, and partly USA had very little to do with Europe.

Untill Japan started attacking all the Dutch and English colonies of course. But still.

It has been argued that Japan's Imperial ambitions prior to ww2 was the result of Japan getting shafted when they were doling out all the German colonies after the Treaty of Versailles.

Yeah no
Germany had next to nothing in the far east: the Samoan Islands, maybe an 8th of New Guinea and a few lesser islands.

The Japanese Empire pretty much tried to take Korea and make China its biatch from the start of the Meiji Era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_Treaty_of_1876
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_War_%281894-1895%29

They expanded there ambitions to the French and Dutch areas after America and some Europeans started placing embargoes on them for starting the second Sino-Japanese War

Ah No and No:

They also had Shandong in China which was given to the Japanese but were only given Madate over  Palau, Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Marshall Islands.

Japan was aggrieved as they were refused equal racial treatment in the Treaty of Versailles and were not allowed equal free regain in Manchuria as the Americans and British had in latin America and Colonies, respectfiully.
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Richard_J_-Smethurst/3825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ...


Australia (yeah yeah UK territory at the time) put an embargo on China in 1937 and the US did greatly reduce what they sold Japan and began supplying China.  UK and France also began supplying China

There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Versailles that would have changed what Japan did prior to 1941, short of giving the total control of Manchuria.

They were an aggressive empire bent on total domination of Korea and at least Northern China. Trying to blame some stupid after thought in the Treaty of Versailles is nothing but a horrible attempt at white washing the crimes committed by the Japaneses aggressors against China and Korea
 
2014-04-15 02:57:04 PM  

cheyanne9: mark625: MyRandomName: MindStalker: cheyanne9: [www.bookwormroom.com image 599x799]

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit.  If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

Ummm... 1) it was not always owned by the feds. 2) it was not bought by the feds, the feds used questionable policy to assert rights over the lands. 3) the feds have used said policy to take around 80% of Nevada's state lands. 4) the same desert turtle was moved in order to build a solar plant for Reid's good friend, but apparently too endangered to allow cattle on the same land.

Would you two idiots take that conversation somewhere else please?

Or at least post pics of hot Ukrainian (or Nevadan (shudder)) chicks?

I thought it would have stopped after my single post. but.....
Insofar as the hot chicks, I was thinking Chelsea Clinton, would that work?
She so accomplished and could save the Ukraine just her parents.
Just look at those choppers, send her in to straighten things out.

[maaadddog.files.wordpress.com image 399x266]


Time for you to go into the circular bin. Adios, mofo.
 
2014-04-15 03:01:43 PM  

ShadowKamui: Australia (yeah yeah UK territory at the time) put an embargo on China in 1937 and the US did greatly reduce what they sold Japan and began supplying China.


Australia was a separate country as of 1907.
 
2014-04-15 03:11:39 PM  

MyRandomName: TheShavingofOccam123: Let's see. Now is the time where we

1. raise taxes

2. institute a draft

Oh wait. That model is outdated.

Nowadays, I think the model is

1. cut taxes on the wealthy

2. pay trillions to military contractors

3. force military volunteers to live in near poverty and serve multiple 15 month combat tours with little or no time off between tours

/You know, if you live on the right side of the tracks and know the right people, war can be a real money-maker.

This is fun. Currently the top quintile pays the largest share of taxes that it has since the income tax started. So what taxes were cut?

The DoD budget is under 700 billion a year, 15% goes to R&D. Trillions? )

And finally... 50% of the DoD budget is for troop pay, housing, healthcare. It is democrats seeking to cut that budget. Odd, no?


Bush tax cuts.

Refusal to raise taxes to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan wars (remember the Bush administration said the illegal preemptive war would pay for itself).

Renewal of Bush tax cuts during two wars.

Trillions paid to contractors? A ten year oil war in Iraq which was tended by military contractors--including apparently mercenaries.  A war that was funded off-budget so we don't really know exactly what we paid to contractors over those 10 years and since then.

The Democrats want to cut defense spending? You might want to look at the Ryan budget just passed by the House. A half a trillion dollars in defense spending ABOVE current law.

You're right. This is fun.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/house-passes-republican-rya n- s-budget-to-cut-spending.html
 
2014-04-15 03:19:51 PM  

washington-babylon: spawn73: IamKaiserSoze!!!: This must create almost as big of a farklib boner as Israel being overtaken by Syria

The guy that wanted to put the A-10s into service looks smart compared to you.

I wonder who of you two would come closest to placing Ukraine on a map.

Wouldn't it be easier to place the map under Ukraine, rather than placing Ukraine on the map? Sure, you would have to dig a huge hole, but that's GOT to be easier than picking a country up and placing it carefully on a map, right?


I was thinking doing it blindfolded, kinda like pin the tail the donkey.
 
2014-04-15 03:32:36 PM  

MindStalker: cheyanne9: [www.bookwormroom.com image 599x799]

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit.  If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.


Actually, if you take into consideration just the US Constitution, Bundy has a point. Article 1, section 8, Paragraph 17 (describing the powers of congress): "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings "

All further constitutional powers granted to the federal government (Article 4, for example) only allow the federal government to regulate public lands. The federal government was never granted the power or authority to seize the majority of the Midwest and declare ownership. Yes, the government can own land. But there are heavy restrictions on what exact land it can own, and what it can use those lands for. The BLM is a branch of the federal government, much like the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, (or any other agency) and as such should be bound by the same rules as the rest of the government. Under none of the special legal privileges granted to the Federal Government do the lands claimed by the BLM have any legal standing (other than "Precedent"), therefore, the land is technically "Unclaimed" and falls under state laws regarding the filing of claims for mining or homesteading. If you disagree, you are quite welcome to point out the particular article of the US Constitution that grants the Federal Government ownership of the majority of the midwestern and western lands. So far, no one has been able to.
 
2014-04-15 03:40:15 PM  

washington-babylon: Actually, if you take into consideration just the US Constitution, Bundy has a point.


www.bundyology.com
 
2014-04-15 03:42:54 PM  

washington-babylon: MindStalker: cheyanne9: [www.bookwormroom.com image 599x799]

I don't get this argument. You have state sheriffs insisting that federally owned land is state land and people protesting their state right to use that land as they see fit.  If the state wants the land it can farking buy it from the federal government (well I guess the feds have to be willing to sell), but its land legally owned by the feds and has always been owned by the feds. This is only states rights as far as the right of states to annex federal property, which they don't have.

Actually, if you take into consideration just the US Constitution, Bundy has a point. Article 1, section 8, Paragraph 17 (describing the powers of congress): "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings "

All further constitutional powers granted to the federal government (Article 4, for example) only allow the federal government to regulate public lands. The federal government was never granted the power or authority to seize the majority of the Midwest and declare ownership. Yes, the government can own land. But there are heavy restrictions on what exact land it can own, and what it can use those lands for. The BLM is a branch of the federal government, much like the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, (or any other agency) and as such should be bound by the same rules as the rest of the government. Under none of the special legal privileges granted to the Federal Government do the lands claimed by the BLM have any legal standing (other than "Precedent"), therefore, the land is technically "Unclaimed" and falls under state l ...


Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 would like a word, O Great Fark Constitutional Scholar(TM).
 
2014-04-15 03:46:56 PM  

dittybopper: All2morrowsparTs: Ah No and No:

They also had Shandong in China which was given to the Japanese but were only given Madate over  Palau, Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Marshall Islands.

Japan was aggrieved as they were refused equal racial treatment in the Treaty of Versailles and were not allowed equal free regain in Manchuria as the Americans and British had in latin America and Colonies, respectfiully.
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Richard_J_-Smethurst/3825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_during_World_War_I#Events_of_1919

I guess that makes this all better, then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking


No it was a tragedy, but completely irrelevant to the topic I was addressing which in itself was a thread that was irrelevant to the original topic. So congratulations?
 
2014-04-15 03:53:23 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: washington-babylon:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 would like a word, O Great Fark Constitutional Scholar(TM).


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-15 03:59:15 PM  

Maud Dib: Shanghai_Flyer: This thread is starting to confuse me...so there are Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms riding cattle from Nevada and having a stand-off with Ukraine and the BLM? Have I got that right? Also desert tortoises on land with gas pipelines to Western Europe?

It's Tard Tuesday. So, yeah.


No, it's Neutral Evil Tuesday.  Tomorrow is Lawful Evil Wednesday, day after that is True Neutral Thursday, then Good Friday.

/Yesterday was just Chaotic Evil.
 
2014-04-15 03:59:31 PM  

ShadowKamui: Australia (yeah yeah UK territory at the time) put an embargo on China in 1937 and the US did greatly reduce what they sold Japan and began supplying China. UK and France also began supplying ChinaThere is absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Versailles that would have changed what Japan did prior to 1941, short of giving the total control of Manchuria.They were an aggressive empire bent on total domination of Korea and at least Northern China. Trying to blame some stupid after thought in the Treaty of Versailles is nothing but a horrible attempt at white washing the crimes committed by the Japaneses aggressors against China and Korea


First off, I am not making a judgment on Japans guilt regarding WW2 or the Sino-Japanese War, I was saying some would argue (and they did) that the outcome of WW1 put them on a negative path towards the west. Along with this and economic discord in 1926 allowed for the militarism of Japanese government and society that actually lead to their imperial ambitions. That is what the articles that were saying.

Also again I'm not saying that no one put an embargo on Japan, I'm saying that Indo China was invaded not because of the embargo but because of their refusal to close their supply routes to China.

Not that the embargoing government of France was not the same one, with the same influences, as the Government the Japanese eventually attacked.

Also some one said that Britain and the Dutch were in a shooting war with Japan before the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor, and the articles I posted refuted that fact.
 
2014-04-15 04:02:24 PM  

dittybopper: Maud Dib: Shanghai_Flyer: This thread is starting to confuse me...so there are Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms riding cattle from Nevada and having a stand-off with Ukraine and the BLM? Have I got that right? Also desert tortoises on land with gas pipelines to Western Europe?

It's Tard Tuesday. So, yeah.

No, it's Neutral Evil Tuesday.  Tomorrow is Lawful Evil Wednesday, day after that is True Neutral Thursday, then Good Friday.

/Yesterday was just Chaotic Evil.


STOP OPPRESSING ME AND MY CHAOTIC NEUTRAL BRETHREN!
 
2014-04-15 04:03:38 PM  

Seraphym: demaL-demaL-yeH: washington-babylon:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 would like a word, O Great Fark Constitutional Scholar(TM).

[img.fark.net image 400x400]


Sorry. I meant to link directly to Justice Story's commentary.
 
2014-04-15 04:14:20 PM  

rwhamann: Carousel Beast: Absolutely, Mister Chamberlain.

/Just being snarky, not serious

I know, but speaking as a defense contractor and a former military officer, I still find the sabre-rattling to be very, very unnerving. I see no gain to the US to get involved, and a world of hurt to be had.


I agree with you, FWIW, I was just in a mood :)

I don't like the situation one bit, but it really does boil down to Ukraine screwing itself over diplomatically. They had a very stark preview of the way Russia was going to behave with the Georgia incident, and that was in 2008 - they've had plenty of time to join NATO or make other treaties for self-protection, and they didn't.
 
2014-04-15 04:16:40 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: ShadowKamui: Australia (yeah yeah UK territory at the time) put an embargo on China in 1937 and the US did greatly reduce what they sold Japan and began supplying China. UK and France also began supplying ChinaThere is absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Versailles that would have changed what Japan did prior to 1941, short of giving the total control of Manchuria.They were an aggressive empire bent on total domination of Korea and at least Northern China. Trying to blame some stupid after thought in the Treaty of Versailles is nothing but a horrible attempt at white washing the crimes committed by the Japaneses aggressors against China and Korea

First off, I am not making a judgment on Japans guilt regarding WW2 or the Sino-Japanese War, I was saying some would argue (and they did) that the outcome of WW1 put them on a negative path towards the west. Along with this and economic discord in 1926 allowed for the militarism of Japanese government and society that actually lead to their imperial ambitions. That is what the articles that were saying.

Also again I'm not saying that no one put an embargo on Japan, I'm saying that Indo China was invaded not because of the embargo but because of their refusal to close their supply routes to China.

Not that the embargoing government of France was not the same one, with the same influences, as the Government the Japanese eventually attacked.

Also some one said that Britain and the Dutch were in a shooting war with Japan before the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor, and the articles I posted refuted that fact.


Yes you are.  Everything you posted was just worthless garbage attempting to white wash away Japanese aggression and say they did it because the west was mean to them.  Japan wanted Korea and Manchuria and was going to take it no matter what useless German crumbs the West gave them.  About the only way that wouldn't of happened is if the West had openly declared war on the Russian commies and told Japan that Siberia was theirs as long as they killed every single commie they could find.
 
gja
2014-04-15 04:18:53 PM  
scienceblogs.com
 
2014-04-15 04:28:12 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Seraphym: demaL-demaL-yeH: washington-babylon:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 would like a word, O Great Fark Constitutional Scholar(TM).

[img.fark.net image 400x400]

Sorry. I meant to link directly to Justice Story's commentary.


The link as posted still succinctly put forward the legal perspective.

i257.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-15 05:37:24 PM  
Ukrainian protester:

i.cbc.ca

American Protester:

crooksandliars.com

But let's all remind ourselves, it is Ukraine that is weak.
 
2014-04-15 05:52:58 PM  

Seraphym: demaL-demaL-yeH: washington-babylon:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 would like a word, O Great Fark Constitutional Scholar(TM).

[img.fark.net image 400x400]


Except that "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States " does not include the states themselves, or the property therein (THAT belongs to the people). As for the other commentary that you linked, it makes the argument that all property of the confederated states falls under the heading of "Territory" as conquered from a foreign nation. This argument is absurd in the extreme, as by definition that would grant the federal government exclusive ownership of anything south of the mason-dixon line, with the ability to govern without states having any representation or state government. This is obviously false. The Territory or property clause extends only to lands directly owned by the federal government, and those lands are clearly defined in Article 1, section 8. BLM lands don't fall into the defined lands the federal government is allowed to retain ownership of, therefore the claiming of said lands is illegal. The only reason this has been allowed to slide is because nobody wanted to say anything to contravene the fed's claims.
 
2014-04-15 06:00:28 PM  

washington-babylon: The only reason this has been allowed to slide is because nobody wanted to say anything to contravene the fed's claims.



Also nobody cared about land polluted from nuclear tests and flying saucer debris.
 
2014-04-15 06:09:59 PM  
ShadowKamui:

Yes you are.  Everything you posted was just worthless garbage attempting to white wash away Japanese aggression and say they did it because the west was mean to them.  Japan wanted Korea and Manchuria and was going to take it no matter what useless German crumbs the West gave them.  About the only way that wouldn't of happened is if the West had openly declared war on the Russian commies and told Ja ...


Good lord, if you are going to put words in my mouth get your facts right. Japan already had control of Korea as of 1905 and solidified it with annexation in 1910, and allof it started with the Treaty of 1876 when Japan pulled a Dewey on Korea because the French and the Americans failed to do it themselves. This had no bearing with their conquest interests in WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule

Also the Japanese in Manchuria had more to do with the railway line it inherited from the Russians after the Treaty of Portsmouth. The actual invasion was more related to Golf of Tonkin than a general strategy to take Manchuria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident

Again, I'm not defending Japans actions in WW2 or the Sino-Japanese war but get your freakin' facts straight before accusing others of negligence.
 
2014-04-15 06:24:56 PM  

codigo: washington-babylon: The only reason this has been allowed to slide is because nobody wanted to say anything to contravene the fed's claims.


Also nobody cared about land polluted from nuclear tests and flying saucer debris.


That is a tiny portion of BLM-claimed lands. Take a look (not the most recent map, but the BLM rarely ever changes "ownership"):

protectmustangs.org
 
2014-04-15 06:30:18 PM  

Finger51: Ukrainian protester:

[i.cbc.ca image 620x349]

American Protester:

[crooksandliars.com image 460x380]

But let's all remind ourselves, it is Ukraine that is weak.


www.reviewjournal.com
does this guy not count just because you disagree with him?
 
2014-04-15 06:34:45 PM  

dittybopper: youmightberight: How would you like it if Canada decided to say - annex Alaska - I mean it's in their backyard and it's not that big of a change anyway right?

What if Russia decided it wanted Alaska *BACK*?


I didn't want to go that far with it but with the reaction they are getting in Europe Putin would have no reason NOT to try for as much land as he thinks he can get.
 
2014-04-15 06:36:02 PM  

echomike23: Finger51: Ukrainian protester:

[i.cbc.ca image 620x349]

American Protester:

[crooksandliars.com image 460x380]

But let's all remind ourselves, it is Ukraine that is weak.

[www.reviewjournal.com image 360x480]
does this guy not count just because you disagree with him?


What, exactly, makes him strong, rather than just delusional?
 
2014-04-15 06:39:00 PM  

spawn73: youmightberight: spawn73: youmightberight: Now would be a good time to pull the A-10's out of mothballs.

Surely you are trolling.

Your response is to attack and kill, uh someone, in a country that doesn't concern USA, and furthermore could shot those farking A-10s down if they so pleased.


Or is it just that Ukrainian tank stuck in the mud you want to strafe?

Not trolling - Putin needs to keep his hands out of the cookie jar and him sending his guys in without insignia to act as "protestors" is complete bullshiat. The fact that you seem to be giving him a pass for his COMPLETELY OBVIOUS SHENANIGANS  is frankly disturbing to me. As for it not concerning us yes it does. Lines on a map may just be lines but they CLEARLY delineate the rule of one group from that of another. How would you like it if Canada decided to say - annex Alaska - I mean it's in their backyard and it's not that big of a change anyway right? Oh who cares that they sent soldiers in without insignia as pretense Canada is a nuclear armed country and we don't want a war with them so just give them what they want.

This is essentially what we are telling Ukraine - But wait there's more. We basically told these people that if they gave up their nukes we would respect their national boundaries. Now this isn't a promise to come to their aid and defense but guess what. Russia isn't going to stop once they have all of Ukraine.

So you shoot up the unmarked guys so this shiat stops before you have to really go to war.

Ukraine got a really bum deal. Maybe they're regretting ever so slightly that they tore up that EU brokered peace deal.

So, yeah, they're still going bankrupt. The upcomming election is even more a farce. It easier to mention who isn't running around acting like dickheads now.

How about this, the A-10 has no place there. The Ukraine doesn't even have a legitimate government to ask for such an assitance. And you'd probably not know who to shoot at anyway.

Economic aid, monitor that electi ...


Economic aid to a country that is about to be taken over? no thank you.

Monitor elections? And give legitimacy to putins land grabs? Are you a farking idiot?

You're dealing with a KGB/FSB guy who wants to rule the old soviet union/Russian empire. Know your enemy.

As for who to shoot at - it's easy - they are all wearing the newest highspeed Russian digicam. Not hard.
 
2014-04-15 06:40:05 PM  

washington-babylon: codigo: washington-babylon: The only reason this has been allowed to slide is because nobody wanted to say anything to contravene the fed's claims.


Also nobody cared about land polluted from nuclear tests and flying saucer debris.

That is a tiny portion of BLM-claimed lands. Take a look (not the most recent map, but the BLM rarely ever changes "ownership"):

[protectmustangs.org image 850x579]


The BLM does not claim ownership of the land. They are the Federal organization that maintains it because it does fall into the jurisdiction of the other services like National Park Services or USDA (National Forest Service).

The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.

These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country-settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.
The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.


In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
 
2014-04-15 06:53:22 PM  

echomike23: Finger51: Ukrainian protester:

[i.cbc.ca image 620x349]

American Protester:

[crooksandliars.com image 460x380]

But let's all remind ourselves, it is Ukraine that is weak.

[www.reviewjournal.com image 360x480]
does this guy not count just because you disagree with him?


sorry, when did I disagree with anyone?

Also, I thought this thread was about the Uke's and the Russkies?
 
Displayed 50 of 275 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report