What is happening with Russia and Ukraine now?

It's not eep:

 

That is simply false.

Also, Skaara, i'm not really sure what is annoying you so much about this discussion.

 

So life under siad barre was happy and safe without persecution or war, the siad barre regime was not started through a military coup and his regime did not end through a civil war which went into a civil war between warlords since then

 

Lovely.

 

What you just said is one of the most preposterous antihistorical claims:

"In 1969, following the assassination of Somalia's second president, Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, the military staged a coup on October 21 (the day after Shermarke's funeral), and took over office. The Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC) that assumed power was led by Major General Barre.[...] The SRC subsequently renamed the country the Somali Democratic Republic,[10][11] arrested members of the former government, banned political parties,[12] dissolved the parliament and the Supreme Court, and suspended the constitution"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre#Seizure_of_power)

If you think living under such conditions can be defined as a "happy and safe life", i would recommend permanently moving to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I'm sure the Brilliant c-omrade Kim Jong-un will welcome you warm-heartedly and with open arms.

Also, i would like to quote directly some more paragraphs of the above reported page:

"By 1978, manufactured goods exports were almost non-existent, and with the lost support of the Soviet Union the Barre government signed a structural adjustment agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during the early 1980s. This included the abolishment of some government monopolies and increased public investment. This and a second agreement were both cancelled by the mid-1980s, as the Somali army refused to accept a proposed 60 percent cut in military spending."

"Part of Barre's time in power was characterized by oppressive dictatorial rule, including allegations of persecution, jailing and torture of political opponents and dissidents. The United Nations Development Programme stated that "the 21-year regime of Siyad Barre had one of the worst human rights records in Africa."[25] The Africa Watch Committee wrote in a report that "both the urban population and nomads living in the countryside [were] subjected to summary killings, arbitrary arrest, detention in squalid conditions, torture, rape, crippling constraints on freedom of movement and expression and a pattern of psychological intimidation."[26] Amnesty International went on to report that torture methods committed by Barre's National Security Service (NSS) included executions and "beatings while tied in a contorted position, electric shocks, rape of woman prisoners, simulated executions and death threats." [27]

In September 1970, the government introduced the National Security Law No. 54, which granted the NSS the power to arrest and detain indefinitely those who expressed critical views of the government, without ever being brought to trial. It further gave the NSS the power to arrest without a warrant anyone suspected of a crime involving "national security."

"From the late 1970s, and onwards Barre faced a shrinking popularity and increased domestic resistance. In response, Barre's elite unit, the Red Berets (Duub Cas), and the paramilitary unit called the Victory Pioneers carried out systematic terror against the Majeerteen, Hawiye, and Isaaq clans.[29] The Red Berets systematically smashed water reservoirs to deny water to the Majeerteen and Isaaq clans and their herds. More than 2,000 members of the Majeerteen clan died of thirst, and an estimated 5,000 Isaaq were killed by the government. Members of the Victory Pioneers also raped large numbers of Majeerteen and Isaaq women, and more than 300,000 Isaaq members fled to Ethiopia."

"In an effort to hold on to power, Barre's ruling Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC) became increasingly authoritarian and arbitrary. This caused opposition to his regime to grow. Barre in turn tried to quell the unrest by abandoning appeals to nationalism, relying more and more on his own inner circle, and exploiting historical clan animosities. By the mid-1980s, more resistance movements supported by Ethiopia's communist Derg administration had sprung up across the country. Barre responded by ordering punitive measures against those he perceived as locally supporting the guerillas, especially in the northern regions. The clampdown included bombing of cities, with the northwestern administrative center of Hargeisa, a Somali National Movement (SNM) stronghold, among the targeted areas in 1988.[18]

In 1990, on the eve of the civil war, Somalia's first President Aden Abdullah Osman Daar and about 100 other Somali politicians signed a manifesto advocating reconciliation.[19] A number of the signatories were subsequently arrested.[20] Barre's heavy-handed tactics further strengthened the appeal of the various rebel movements, although these groups' only common goal was to overthrow of his regime."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War#Fall_of_Barre_regime_.281986.E2.80.931991.29)


So, it is indeed a civil war that ended Siad's brutal regime, contrary to what you have falsely (and deriberately) claimed. Furthermore, it is a civil war that was sparked and ignited by the very policies and actions of the dictator, who , according to you, granteed a "happy and safe life" (i hope you are able to comprehend the gravity of your statements).

"An anti-Siad Barre demonstration on July 6, 1990, at a soccer match in the main stadium deteriorated into a riot, causing Siad Barre's bodyguard to panic and open fire on the demonstrators. At least sixty-five people were killed. A week later, while the city reeled from the impact of what came to be called the Stadia Corna Affair, Siad Barre sentenced to death 46 prominent members of the Manifesto Group, a body of 114 notables who had signed a petition in May calling for elections and improved human rights."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Rebellion)

 

Wouldn't it just be wonderful if Russia joined NATO as well? But I guess then NATO wouldn't have any reason to exist, and then it'd just tear down until everyone just went at each other. :sad:
-Meanwhile, South-America and Afrika just watches and shakes their heads.

Sorry if I've shown signs of annoyance, but I'm not

 

Rolf, what I said was sarcasm

 

Yeaaaah....suuuure...

 

Why would Russia become a subordinate to the US, sever all ties with the countries that hate NATO, piss off China, India and its own 140 million population? Why would RF join the "enemy" that went out of its way to destroy the lives of people in the USSR who are still alive and still remember that? Look at the former baltic states to see what membership in the glorious exclusive European club gives: Factories closed, infrastructure destroyed because it doesn't conform to European regulations and most of financial "aid" goes back to Europe as fines. A polish plumber is a stereotype in UK, for one.

Meanwhile - 280 trucks of humanitarian aid:

[YOUTUBE]X72AmOyFN-M[/YOUTUBE]

 

This is exactly why this conflict exists and why Ukraine is so important to both NATO and Russia. So many people debate this "Russian expansion" or "NATO incursion" while in reality it is just about NATO (and the western world) wanting to push Russia further away and undermine Russia as a superpower and Russia clawing desperately to remain one. That is basically what it is about, and it seems ignorant to me when people debate which side is right or who is the "bad guy".

 

The West sanctions Russia, Russia sanctions EU and others back. The West complains "that's not fair".

Harper sends non lethal "humanitarian aid" to Ukraine, Russia sends non lethal "humanitarian aid" to Ukraine. The west complain "that's not fair".



To recap: It's going to suck for all sides, but it seems that RF is going to be hit much less than the EU. Sanctions will probably have some repercussions in the long run, the prices will rise, Crimea has no fresh water and the tourist industry is fucked and will remain so for a while. On the other hand GIANT markets in Belorussia and other countries have opened up. 140 million hungry people willing to pay is a giant boost for any country with excessive food production.

On the other hand the european farmers are fucked. As far as I can tell they borrow money from the banks, then buy seeds, then grow them, then sell predetermined amount of stuff, then pay back the banks and get some money to keep for themselves. But now Russia banned a shitton of imports and the farmers can't sell their stuff and can't pay back the banks... There is only 400 million euros to compensate and I hope that's enough.

Poland asks USA to buy the banned imports to Russia, "you break it, you buy it".

EDIT: Russia Ships Coal to America Despite Sanctions.

 

Prices on food and products of agriculture are already dropping in Italy (source: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/bus...0.1_5ffa0af0-11fc-4c89-8390-f76d7792abed.html )

 

Well so far Danish companies having invested in Ukraine support the movement for inclusion in the EU, so they can sell their products on a larger market. I don't see how getting Ukraine into EU or at least opening for trade can somehow harm the European economy.
On the contrary, Russia is the 3rd largest trading partner of the EU, while EU is the largest trading partner in Russia. While the European imports are somewhat harder to ban (we need oil) Iran has offered to sell it if Russia stops the supply.
That the Russian sanctions are tougher than the European ones is the decision of the Russian government and not something that I can do anything about, so I won't bother much with that.

 

All coverage of MH17 by Western media has completely stopped. Black box data that was supposed to be released on August 1st still hasn't been released, while Ukraine held ATC tapes have gone missing.

It won't hurt the EU economy, the association agreement will make sure of it, but the sanctions will.

The problem with this is that some EU members, namely the former Baltic states doing a lot of trade with RF, can't compete on EU market effectively and it shows (Complaints and demands of compensations). When the sanctions are lifted, all the spots will be occupied by China, Belorussia and Argentina, that have already offered direct food sales to RF. Even though the RF food imports from the EU aren't that big, the EU potentially lost these contracts permanently and there are no other available markets to sell to.

 

Rolf, I'm not even going to try and argue

 

There's not much to argue about.

 

Except th fact it was sarcasm

 

Humanitarian convoy was allowed entrance.

 

I don't know what role Norway plays in this, but somehow the government thinks some ukrainian or russian rebels are planning to do some terrorist actions in Norway, I think, so recently they tightened up the security in all of Norway. The airstrips are now guarded by policemen with rifles, showing off their weapons in public. There's even armed officers at the trainstations in the capital. I recently crossed the boarder from Sweden into Norway, and where you have to drive real slowly through a narrow passage, there was a guard there standing broad and tall just on the side of the road with a scoped MP-5 in his hands, staring inspectingly on every car driving past him.

I still don't know why Norway thinks they're gonna be terrorized :noidea:

EDIT: Nice to hear from you again, Darkbringer!

 

i hear that it's been blocked, on the contrary.