Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

[touchring]

The indiscriminate artillery bombardment of East Ukraine reminds me of what Assad did that led to the mess of Syria today.

Is this the way to solve a regional conflict? I hope the Europeans know what they are getting into.

[don]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

I hope the Europeans know what they are getting into.

The pressure being brought to bear by the US on Euro "leaders" must be quite formidable.

A fair assumption?

[touchring]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

The pressure being brought to bear by the US on Euro "leaders" must be quite formidable.

A fair assumption?

We can presume that of course. But the Euro leaders can be voted out?

Democracies are harder to control than dictatorships.

[don]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

The case has been made here numerous times that a democratic facade may be the most effective means for an elite to govern.

[vt]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

Ukraine artillery is a response to Russian rebel artillery against the legitimate, elected government of Ukraine. The rebel's weaponry and ammo are being constantly resupplied by Putin.

The Europeans know exactly what they are doing; they are supporting freedom.

[Woodsman]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

"The legitimate, elected government of Ukraine" is such a chore to type, vt. Can we just save time and call it LEGU for short? Save you a ton of keystrokes, that's for sure.

[vt]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

Goes well with illegitimate Russian rebels or IRR.

[touchring]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

The Europeans know exactly what they are doing; they are supporting freedom.

I'm for supporting freedom for Ukrainians and democracy, but sacrificing innocent people in the name freedom? Sorry, I don't buy this story.

The strategy of fanning anarchy elsewhere to put yourself into a better position is an attractive one since it doesn't cost much money, except that fire can spread. ISIS and Ferguson are good examples of what happens when the boomerang comes around.

[Shakespear]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

The Europeans know exactly what they are doing; they are supporting freedom.

Ohhh VT

Anyway, thanks for motivating me to look for this, as along the way I found a nice website with interesting information. On top of that it is in the Land of My Favorite players of "The Great Game", Great Britain.
A bit of translation is required for adjustment to today's vocabulary of everyday usage,
"ruse" means lie
"smugglers" means narco dealers
"leaders" means terrorists
"local legislators" means Goldman-Sachs types
"honoring agreements" means "pretended to honor agreements"
I leave the rest to you

Despite its notoriety, the objection to tax levied on tea was a ruse; the real issue was the British had, in an attempt to curtail their activities, under-cut the price of tea offered by smugglers, so it’s not surprising that most of the revolutionary leaders were in fact smugglers. But what is less well known is these same leaders had become wealthy dealing with the enemy during the Seven-Year-War, while fellow Americans were fighting to help save the colonies from the French.
Another reason not often mentioned is that the local legislatures for their own ends, kept devaluing their currencies to the point of making them virtually worthless. This cheated creditors out of money; but also created large numbers of debtors in the colonies.
The money owed wasn’t theirs to lose, so by promising to absolve these debts, the rebels devised a powerful incentive for support.
The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honoring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.
Then a Habeas corpus case (having to justify the reason for someone’s detention) was started in London 1771, which found that slavery was contrary to the laws of England. This verdict ultimately led to the abolition of slavery in Britain. The ramifications of which was not lost on the future rebel leaders as most being slave owners would have considered it a threat to their livelihoods.

The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all quasi-atheists e.g. Deists) only represented about 27% of two and quarter million colonists (although they said it was 33%), but even if this was correct they knew they would have never won power through a referendum, so as they possess considerable propaganda skills, they called themselves Patriots, contrived incidents like the so called ' Boston massacre', portrayed their own vested interests as philanthropic ideals, and incited a reign of terror, aimed at civil authorities to disrupt society.

http://www.redcoat.me.uk/index.htm

[don]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

Nice broom, Shakes, for sweeping back the tide . . .

[vt]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...50c_story.html

[flintlock]

Re: Is Poroshenko making the same mistake as Assad?

Despite its notoriety, the objection to tax levied on tea was a ruse; the real issue was the British had, in an attempt to curtail their activities, under-cut the price of tea offered by smugglers, so it’s not surprising that most of the revolutionary leaders were in fact smugglers. But what is less well known is these same leaders had become wealthy dealing with the enemy during the Seven-Year-War, while fellow Americans were fighting to help save the colonies from the French. Another reason not often mentioned is that the local legislatures for their own ends, kept devaluing their currencies to the point of making them virtually worthless. This cheated creditors out of money; but also created large numbers of debtors in the colonies.
The money owed wasn’t theirs to lose, so by promising to absolve these debts, the rebels devised a powerful incentive for support.
The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honoring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.
Then a Habeas corpus case (having to justify the reason for someone’s detention) was started in London 1771, which found that slavery was contrary to the laws of England. This verdict ultimately led to the abolition of slavery in Britain. The ramifications of which was not lost on the future rebel leaders as most being slave owners would have considered it a threat to their livelihoods.

The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all quasi-atheists e.g. Deists) only represented about 27% of two and quarter million colonists (although they said it was 33%), but even if this was correct they knew they would have never won power through a referendum, so as they possess considerable propaganda skills, they called themselves Patriots, contrived incidents like the so called ' Boston massacre', portrayed their own vested interests as philanthropic ideals, and incited a reign of terror, aimed at civil authorities to disrupt society.


http://www.redcoat.me.uk/index.htm

This is a fairly accurate statement but only leaves out what I have come to conclude was the most obvious reason for the Revolution. American leaders realized it was silly to pledge allegiance to some half German powdered wig wearing King thousands of miles away, who by this time in history, did not fight and win wars like William the Conqueror, but was basically put in place by men exactly like them. They realized they could become Kingmakers in their own right, and there really wasn't much England could do about it. By this point in time England was well on it's way to the sort of "Show Royalty" they have today. In other words, why cut England in on the take? The "Liberty and Freedom" thing was very palatable to the masses and fit well with the type of person who had developed in the Colonies. And its key to realize the common man and the political leadership had different motives. But it took both to wage a successful revolution. I do believe many Revolutionary leaders had noble intentions, but there was no reason they shouldn't make a little profit along the way, eh?

And it was not a simple as "murdering the Indians for their land" but that is an entirely different subject.