MTG Salvation

Quote from magickware99

The point of civil rights is acceptance and tolerance. The way I see it, this isn't that. You're merely trading one intolerance for another.

At first, I felt the LGBT community was being overzealous; but, after I thought more about it, I now deem the response fair.

Think about it this way. If the CEO supported something like segregation between blacks and white on buses, how do you expect African American community to respond? This is a comparable scenario to the LGBT community down to the boycotting buses. The only reason you feel that this is a case of "oppressing the oppressor" is because you aren't that strongly an advocate for LGBT rights and find the CEO's views to be not unusual and the status quo; however, demanding a boycott is comparable to many other civil rights movements. It's not an overreaction so much as the LGBT community finally exerting the gravity of homophobia akin to other prejudices like racism.

And that's where "trading one intolerance for another" falls apart. The entire moral fabric of society is built on intolerance of one act or the other. How would we enforce laws such as those against murder, thievery, rape, etc. without "intolerance" for the acts? Are you suggesting that the proper response to racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc. should be limited to less than that of boycotting?

Ultimately, no one was in the right and no one was in the wrong.

http://www.heavy.com/news/2014/04/chupacabra-captured-pictures-video-found-texas/

This is so awesome. A Texas family has captured a live chupacabra!

It's just a game OP and, if you explain that you weren't feeling well and that you're recovering from a concussion, I think the other player would understand.

I read an article in Entertainment Weekly about how rock and roll is becoming bland.

http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/03/14/mock-stars-foster-the-people/

Anyway, like many magazine quality articles, it doesn't really have any direction; but, basically, it names the same bands that I have listed throughout this thread: One Republic, Mumford and Sons, Imagine Dragons, etc. Yep, rock and roll isn't dead. At least not "dead" dead.

Russia is plowing deeper into Ukraine and considering legislation that will basically permit it to annex as much land as it so pleases.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-15/crimea-referendum-looms-as-kerry-fails-to-sway-russia.html

Obama and the EU leaders are really horrible.

Quiznos and Sbarro have each individually filed for bankruptcy this week. What has this world come to?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-14/quiznos-follows-sbarro-into-bankruptcy-court.html

(BTW, Hot Dog on a Stick is also bankrupt. I guess it serves these restaurants right for serving horrible food. Especially Sbarros for selling overpriced, leftover pizza that needs to be reheated.)

The work of intellectuals are of interest to a smaller subset of the population whereas the work of modern musicians are accessible to a broader audience. Even amongst intellectuals of different fields, the findings of one are of no interest to the other. Intellectuals of a particular field are, in fact, highly admired amongst practitioners of their discipline, though.

Quote from Valanarch

Should Crimea have the right to either declare its independence or join the Russian Federation?

I think Crimea does have the right to declare independence; however, the problem is that the circumstances under which the referendum arose has very low probability of any legitimacy. This is clearly posturing from the Russian government.

If Crimea had wanted to secede before armed gunmen held public buildings hostage, installed a new government, and then announced a referendum to secede literally a week or two after, I would be completely indifferent toward Crimean secession.

Quote from Kalevala_R

The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population, consider themselves Russian and gladly agreed to receive Russian citizenship. But there are some factors that hinder conditionally.

Blinking Spirit has the right idea. Even if Crimea had wanted to secede, having a foreign entity seize control of the region militarily is a dangerous precedent to set and I think something that most of the world will be wary to accept.



If Russia gets Crimea, it will open up a whole can of worms. China will certainly be overjoyed and nervous all at the same time. We need Obama out of the president's seat fast. He is not a competent president. This type of shenanigans would never have happened under Bush or any recent president.

Quote from Highroller

Quote from EvincarCrovax

It seems Crimea has decided they're going to join Russia.

Being presumptuous there, don't you think?

I think Crimea will choose to join Russia. The entire Ukraine is brimming with Russian shadow politics and this referendum is just a cheap ploy to somewhat legitimize their annexation. The referendums mean little when the region is largely held hostage by armed gunmen. Of course, even without ballot box stuffing, I would predict Crimea will vote to join Russia. Crimeans are less interested in politics and more concerned with avoiding conflict. Voting to join the Russians is the more likely outcome to prevent Crimea from turning into a battlefield.

Quote from magickware99

So your belief is that Russia is just being angry that one of its puppet-states is trying to leave its grasp and being all totalitarian on them?

This article actually explains it perfectly.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-02/putin-grab-for-crimea-shows-trail-of-warning-signs-west-ignored.html

Ukraine is worthless to Russia economically outside use of its pipelines, which Russia is increasingly building around. Ukraine is an impoverished nation which Russia has dumped billions in loans and gas subsidies. Ukraine is constantly asking for aid, siphoning Russian gas, and at odds with Gazprom over debt and contracts.

You must also recall that the Soviet Union has actually only disintegrated 20 or so years ago. It is still emblazoned in the memory of Russians, esp. Putin who has voiced his regret for the fallout. Ruthless colonialist/imperialist conquest is very characteristic of the USSR, which annexed a number of reluctant participants such as the Baltic states. Russia's abusive history to its neighbors is the reason that many are so skittish of Russia.

Quote from redline22

Of course it's not, but it's enough to last 10 years. And ten years of global oil shortages or much higher oil prices (which would be the case if a large portion of Russia oil was removed from international markets) would break the will, if not the economies, of most of the West.

This is a rather misinformed statement. There will not be a 10-year shortage of natural gas (which is Russia's primary export). States will just move to an alternative energy source like oil or coal. Energy sources tend to be extremely replaceable in the long term (several years... I am speaking "long term" investment). The Middle Eastern countries discovered this very soon after their 1973 oil embargo, which is why they are skittish to throw their weight around with oil again. It is also why Saudi Arabia has tried to keep oil prices at a "reasonable" level in recent years.

The other issue with this statement is that it suffers from the liberal "peak oil" myth. Energy sources in the world will be tapped when they become economically viable to do so so that more gas and oil can be produced. Oil fields are never "used up" in the aspect of being complete deplete of oil. The oil field still has the overwhelming majority of oil when it is "used up"; but, this oil is simply no longer economically viable to extract at the moment.

At the current high price of energy, this has already become the case. The United States is quickly reaching energy independence and is projected to become one of the largest net energy exporters in the world. One proposed solution to the Russia debacle is to import natural gas from the United States, which can completely replace Russia's supply in the long term; but, the capacity is still building, at the moment.

Quote from magickware99

Russia's actions in Ukraine is motivated almost entirely by economical reasons. If the E.U. and Russia were incredibly friendly and Russia had nothing to fear from losing their access to ports, then Russia wouldn't really care about a possiblity of regime change in Ukraine. The very fact that they do have to worry about a regime change in Ukraine points to the fact that there is a great deal of tension between the E.U. and Russia, and this is mostly from economical reasons.

Heck, placing economical constraints on Russia could very well be the worst thing to do right now.

Do you have an article highlighting Russia's economic interest in Ukraine? I would be greatly interested.

I happen to read a lot of business news and it has consistently cited political influence as the motive for Russia's actions. The entire chain of events precipitated from Russia's heavy handed Ukrainian meddling (vote stuffing, imprisoning politicians, the them or us ordeal with the European trade agreement) and the relation of the states would had been much more positive had Russia stuck to providing Ukrainians with aid.

Also, a costly invasion that would also provoke and drag in the West is the worst thing Russia could do in terms of economic interest. Consider that Europe has not even brought up gas sanctions despite risk to fellow EU states and that conveys the tight-knittedness of European-Russia economic relations. The ports may be of interest to Russia but citing "economic interest" would be a rather hard sell.

Quote from Amadi

Quote from TomCat26

The way I see it, nothing can be done. Putin can do whatever he wants, and the west can do nothing to stop him.
The most the west can do is sanction Russia, put up various trade restrictions, etc.

I love the hypocrisy. Whenever US randomly meddles in other countries, it's completely fine and justified. When Russia does the same, we need to instantly intervene with any methods possible. Russia doesn't have any solid reasons to be in Ukraine, but that hasn't stopped the US in the past.

I thought about this for a while and the key difference between US and Russian behavior is the colonialist undertones of the Russians. While the US does invade countries like Iraq without great reason, the US makes no attempt to annex the territory and remove troops after a decade or two. Russia appears to be looking to annex Crimea/Ukraine or turn Ukraine into a Soviet style satellite state in perpetuity. This is a very dangerous precedent to set.

The other issue at hand is Russia's willingness to deploy troops in such proximity to the EU. While attacking a poor country and a wealthy country doesn't have much ethical difference, it does highlight the level of Russian aggression and shows it is acting regardless of economic interest . The US and the west are predictable and act in economic interest and no not want to intervene in Ukraine. Putin clearly is not concerned with the economy with this move and, acting on colonialist motivation, there is no guessing what Russia may do. First Ukraine. Who's next? Finland? Latvia? Estonia?

Then consider Russia's warning to the NATO with regards to the missile defense system in Poland. Coupled with the Ukraine land grab and it looks very much so that Russia is unafraid/ready to deploy nuclear weapons. The US has not asserted for decades such inclination for the usefulness of its "nuclear deterrent".

Overall, underestimating Putin and comparing the US to Russia is a dangerous oversight. The US is predictable and maintains the status quo. Russia is rogue and there is no telling if Ukraine is not the beginning of a continent wide campaign much worse than Iraq.

Quote from bocephus

Yeah! Another war America can stick its nose into.

Seriously, how many skirmishes can America involve its self in?

My question is, will this 'just' be a civil war? or will it become a bit more escalated? Maybe WWIII?

Well, this actually has security implications for Europe, especially considering the expanded European Union which include a number of former Soviet States. I do hope Europe takes a more active geopolitical role. It's starting to look like Russia is warming up to a imperialist land grab. (More than one pundit did not predict Russian invasion, grossly underestimating the state.)

The United States is fortunate to occupy its own continent.

Quote from Raver

Putin will deny being the aggressor because the troops he sent are in Ukraine officially as peacekeepers.

How is this the case? The Crimean Premier who requested protection was only elected leader in a closed door session after the legislature was taken over by gunmen this week.