DDOS Attack Takes Down Russian Source of Canon Pre-Release Details

Status
Not open for further replies.

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,771
1,393
Nations are not households. Every nation has a right to its own military and to defend itself and its borders. Every nation has a right to associate with other nations in military pacts for joint defense.
This is hopelessly naive. It is also not something the U.S. has ever adhered to. Lookup the Monroe Doctrine sometime. Named after president James Monroe. Who first articulated it in 1823. (The Cuban missile crisis would have been an easier example, but I wanted to make clear just how long America has officially held the exact opposite position.)

Putin has no right or legitimate claim to "demilitarize" a neighboring state, no matter how much he may dislike it. Nor, does he have any right to tell a neighboring state that they cannot sign an agreement with other states.
How did that work out for Cuba in 1962? Or Iraq in 2003? How long would that work for a NATO state signing agreements with Russia that are detrimental to NATO and the U.S.? Would that work for Mexico if they made an agreement to host Chinese nuclear missiles on our border?

The world is what it is, not what you or anyone else would like it to be. The cold hard reality is that Russia explicitly warned, for years, that certain conditions would result in a war. And Russia was always a nation strong enough to make good on that threat. Rights, morals, principles, even international law don't really enter into it when a stronger adversary presents terms like that. You either live with the terms or you go to war. I am of the opinion that not one Ukrainian life is worth NATO membership for Ukraine. Likewise, not one Ukrainian or Russian life is worth forcing Russians in the Donbas to keep playing in the Ukrainian sandbox. There are things that would be worth war. There are things worth dying for. These aren't even close. Poroshenko and Zelensky should have chosen peace on both points.

That's a fact and no amount of rationalizations by Putin apologists can change that.
It is your opinion on how the world should work. It is not how the world actually works. We can debate the pros and cons of the principle you articulated. Perhaps it is a principle the world should adhere to. But it would be an abstract conversation about things we might wish to be, rather than things as they are.

Rationalizing the invasion of one country by another by saying "well others countries have done something similar" takes one down a never ending road. How far back in history would you like to go? Perhaps it all is justified because Rome invaded Gaul?
This I agree with.

When the United Nations votes 141-5 to condemn a war, it's time to recognize that you are on the wrong side of history and no matter how much you try to rewrite history that cannot be changed. Russia is the aggressor. It's actions are not justified. It is committing war crimes in Ukraine and it must be condemned for this.
This is just more wishing for things that are not in place of those things which are. In terms of preventing this war the opinion of 141 nations do not matter at all (except to the extent that some of those nations lied to Poroshenko and Zelensky leading them to make foolish decisions). Only the opinion of one nation mattered, and that nation thinks Ukraine was the aggressor. (A charge not easily dismissed when Ukraine was shelling it's own people who were ethnic Russians.) Whether 'the aggressor' is right or wrong in the abstract doesn't stop a single bullet. Likewise, in terms of repelling this invasion, the opinion of 141 nations who are unwilling to commit a single solider due to Russia's nuclear arsenal do not matter. At all. Only the opinions of two nations matter, and one is far bigger than the other.

This was so easily avoided. Don't cross a red line set by a nuclear super power in 1991. And either peacefully convince the Russians in Donbas to remain as part of Ukraine, or let them go. It was that simple. Not one of these points was worth a single human life. It is an absolute tragedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Neutral

EOS RP
Oct 19, 2012
347
22
This is hopelessly naive. It is also not something the U.S. has ever adhered to. Lookup the Monroe Doctrine sometime. Named after president James Monroe. Who first articulated it in 1823. (The Cuban missile crisis would have been an easier example, but I wanted to make clear just how long America has officially held the exact opposite position.)


How did that work out for Cuba in 1962? Or Iraq in 2003? How long would that work for a NATO state signing agreements with Russia that are detrimental to NATO and the U.S.? Would that work for Mexico if they made an agreement to host Chinese nuclear missiles on our border?

The world is what it is, not what you or anyone else would like it to be. The cold hard reality is that Russia explicitly warned, for years, that certain conditions would result in a war. And Russia was always a nation strong enough to make good on that threat. Rights, morals, principles, even international law don't really enter into it when a stronger adversary presents terms like that. You either live with the terms or you go to war. I am of the opinion that not one Ukrainian life is worth NATO membership for Ukraine. Likewise, not one Ukrainian or Russian life is worth forcing Russians in the Donbas to keep playing in the Ukrainian sandbox. There are things that would be worth war. There are things worth dying for. These aren't even close. Poroshenko and Zelensky should have chosen peace on both points.


It is your opinion on how the world should work. It is not how the world actually works. We can debate the pros and cons of the principle you articulated. Perhaps it is a principle the world should adhere to. But it would be an abstract conversation about things we might wish to be, rather than things as they are.


This I agree with.


This is just more wishing for things that are not in place of those things which are. In terms of preventing this war the opinion of 141 nations do not matter at all (except to the extent that some of those nations lied to Poroshenko and Zelensky leading them to make foolish decisions). Only the opinion of one nation mattered, and that nation thinks Ukraine was the aggressor. (A charge not easily dismissed when Ukraine was shelling it's own people who were ethnic Russians.) Whether 'the aggressor' is right or wrong in the abstract doesn't stop a single bullet. Likewise, in terms of repelling this invasion, the opinion of 141 nations who are unwilling to commit a single solider due to Russia's nuclear arsenal do not matter. At all. Only the opinions of two nations matter, and one is far bigger than the other.

This was so easily avoided. Don't cross a red line set by a nuclear super power in 1991. And either peacefully convince the Russians in Donbas to remain as part of Ukraine, or let them go. It was that simple. Not one of these points was worth a single human life. It is an absolute tragedy.
I totally agree with you.
At least there are some people around who understand root of the problem and can see it in historical prospective and understand difference between wishfull thinking and tough reality. Usually I could see such understanding mostly among big project managers managing big complex projects not related to geo-politics.
I wish there would be more such people among top politicians then world would be much better, but it seems that this is impossible.
And yes, this terrible crisis could be easily avoided and a lot of innocent lives could be saved when the last chance was given in December when Russia offered mutual security agreement to US and NATO and that offer was rejected by US. "Big Boss" does not care about people lives, only cares that no other country could challenge his status of the owner of the whole planet. This war is not war of Russia against Ukraine, this is against US and NATO using Ukraine as proxy against Russia.
And from what I see now US and directed by them UK, NATO and EU did whatever possible or impossible ( breaking all the the fundamental western laws which are basement of the western world existence in current state) to put Russia in such condition that Russia can not stop anymore or set back and only has to go forward untill it reach its goals ( no US and NATO in Ukraine and last one is a neutral, demilitarized zone between NATO and Russia)
What is interesting even among some people in UK who hates and demonize Putin and beleive all the fake news from CNN, BBC and other media some understaning is growing of what is really going on and what they need to do.
Here is interesting article:
What is also interesting that my previous comment ( my second one in this thread) where I explained more deep how I see current situation was deleted by site admin. Seems that site admin does not want to see here opinions that do not fit of what should be heard here. I've been here for more than 10 years and always respected this site but this came as a big disappointment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,108
6,540
And yes, this terrible crisis could be easily avoided and a lot of innocent lives could be saved when the last chance was given in December when Russia offered mutual security agreement to US and NATO and that offer was rejected by US.
The draft ‘mutual security’ agreement put forward by Russia was a farce. Russia demanded that NATO reverse its open-door policy included in its founding treaty. Russia demanded NATO not station troops in new member countries, something they had not ever done before Russia’s invasion and annexation of the Crimean peninsula. The agreement included an article banning regional deployment of intermediate-range missiles – a ban that was agreed to by the US and USSR in 1987 and that Russia violated in 2017.

The fact that Russia deployed massive forces at the Ukraine border they claimed were not intended to invade Ukraine, then issued a set of demands couched as ‘mutual security’ while continuing to build their deployment rather than de-escalating, shows the draft agreement was nothing more than an aspect of the larger pretense. Russia never intended the agreement to be accepted or even discussed, they had already planned to instigate this ‘terrible crisis’ and had already planned to cause indiscriminate loss of innocent lives.

And from what I see now US and directed by them UK, NATO and EU did whatever possible or impossible ( breaking all the the fundamental western laws which are basement of the western world existence in current state) to put Russia in such condition that Russia can not stop anymore or set back and only has to go forward untill it reach its goals ( no US and NATO in Ukraine and last one is a neutral, demilitarized zone between NATO and Russia)
As you implied before, you’re now stating outright – poor, victimized Russia. They don’t want to launch wars of aggression and territorial expansion, they are forced to launch wars of aggression and territorial expansion by the West. Your argument that the ‘demilitarization’ and ‘de-Nazification’ of a neighboring sovereign nation is justifiable for any reason is deplorable.

…the fake news from CNN, BBC and other media
Sounds like the source of news that you personally trust is TASS. That would explain your warped attitudes regarding this reprehensible invasion and war of aggression that you call a ‘special military operation’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Status
Not open for further replies.