Politics and War in Ukraine (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Just got up and read your posts Drummer. Last night I wrote that I distrust Ukraine because they venerate a 17th century mass murderer of Jews, treat him like a hero, and continue to promote anti- Semitism. While i dont care about what happened 300 uears ago, it bothers me that they still worship the guy. Thats an opinion on my part, one that people are welcome to disagree with, but I guarantee you it's shared by many many Jews.

So now you've decided that I'm a liar and a sociopath, that I want to be a martyr? Dude, that's just weird.

It's not up to me to decide who you are on a message board. It's how you define yourself.

By all accounts over the years, and all of the suggestions from others as well as the critics who you never listen to: you're a total sociopath. Because you're dishonest, calculated, and self serving, and you have zero communication skills. Sociopaths make great trolls. Mods could care less about you because, lol, they are mods.

Look, I appreciate many of your posts, especially about music. You've taught me a lot on the subject. I am happy to discuss the issue of Russia and Ukraine with you or with anyone. But please stop with this nonsense.

 

[HellToupee]

First off, I am truly sorry that you think the way you do about me, John Bender, because I have respect for you. I made a mess of things in that thread- I was trying to make a distinction. It was poorly done. I apologized for it then and I've regretted it ever since.

Next, regarding Cliff, Ukraine, and their glorification of a mass murderer, I refer anyone whose interested to the Wikipedia entry for Bohdan Khemlnytsky, who I referred to earlier as Chelmnitsky, as he is also known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmelnitsky#Khmelnytsky_remembered

2 passages are of particular importance. First:

Between 1648 and 1656, tens of thousands of Jewsgiven the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figureswere killed by the rebels, and to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history

And second:

In Ukraine, Khmelnytsky is generally regarded as a national hero[17][18][19] and a father of the nation.[citation needed] A city[20] and a region of the country bear his name. His image is prominently displayed on Ukrainian banknotes and his monument in the centre of Kiev is the focal point of the Ukrainian capital.

So Cliff, all I can say to you is, please ask your in-laws about their national hero, about the "father of the nation", who ordered his troops to slaughter every Jew they could, men, women, children, and babies. And if they tell you that he's a hero, then they're the true pieces of ####, not me.

You are a piece of ####. But please, continue to try and justify your hate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are we funding neo-Nazis in the Ukraine?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fascist-danger-in-ukraine-resurgence-of-neo-nazism-denied-by-western-media/5372109

...

And how did you come across this site again?

 

[timschochet]

First off, I am truly sorry that you think the way you do about me, John Bender, because I have respect for you. I made a mess of things in that thread- I was trying to make a distinction. It was poorly done. I apologized for it then and I've regretted it ever since.

Next, regarding Cliff, Ukraine, and their glorification of a mass murderer, I refer anyone whose interested to the Wikipedia entry for Bohdan Khemlnytsky, who I referred to earlier as Chelmnitsky, as he is also known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmelnitsky#Khmelnytsky_remembered

2 passages are of particular importance. First:

Between 1648 and 1656, tens of thousands of Jewsgiven the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figureswere killed by the rebels, and to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history

And second:

In Ukraine, Khmelnytsky is generally regarded as a national hero[17][18][19] and a father of the nation.[citation needed] A city[20] and a region of the country bear his name. His image is prominently displayed on Ukrainian banknotes and his monument in the centre of Kiev is the focal point of the Ukrainian capital.

So Cliff, all I can say to you is, please ask your in-laws about their national hero, about the "father of the nation", who ordered his troops to slaughter every Jew they could, men, women, children, and babies. And if they tell you that he's a hero, then they're the true pieces of ####, not me.

You are a piece of ####. But please, continue to try and justify your hate.

I don't hate anyone, sorry.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I don't think this is going the way Tim expected. Sort of like his take on Crimea....

 

[drummer]

I'm not suprised

Just got up and read your posts Drummer. Last night I wrote that I distrust Ukraine because they venerate a 17th century mass murderer of Jews, treat him like a hero, and continue to promote anti- Semitism. While i dont care about what happened 300 uears ago, it bothers me that they still worship the guy. Thats an opinion on my part, one that people are welcome to disagree with, but I guarantee you it's shared by many many Jews.

So now you've decided that I'm a liar and a sociopath, that I want to be a martyr? Dude, that's just weird.

It's not up to me to decide who you are on a message board. It's how you define yourself.

By all accounts over the years, and all of the suggestions from others as well as the critics who you never listen to: you're a total sociopath. Because you're dishonest, calculated, and self serving, and you have zero communication skills. Sociopaths make great trolls. Mods could care less about you because, lol, they are mods.

Look, I appreciate many of your posts, especially about music. You've taught me a lot on the subject. I am happy to discuss the issue of Russia and Ukraine with you or with anyone. But please stop with this nonsense.

Just stop fronting that you are Jewish. Nobody else that is of Jewish ancestry and faith acts like you do. How do I know this? They would never patronize me.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't hate anyone, sorry.

 

[timschochet]

Can we please not make this about Tim.

What? You mean you didn't come to this thread to watch Tim explain why his bigotry towards Ukrainians is rational?

I'm not bigoted toward Ukranians or anyone else, sorry.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As I wrote earlier, it's as if the Germans had a statue of Adolf Hitler in the center of Berlin. Or if they had Heinrich Himmler on banknotes. But that's not all. Many of the leaders of the Ukraine make ugly anti-Semitic comments all the time. The Protocol of the Elders of Zion remains a best seller over there. Sorry, but it's a hateful place, and always has been.

The Crimean Russians have a very prominent statue of Lenin high above their capital. How many Jews did he kill by your estimate?

 

[timschochet]

I don't think this is going the way Tim expected. Sort of like his take on Crimea....

I don't care. I think what I think. I don't trust the Ukraine government because they continue to promote hatred of Jews. I have offered proof; you can accept it or reject it. I'm not a bigot. There are some people here who truly seem to dislike me. That makes me sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.

 

[drummer]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

When he can find it on Wiki.

 

[drummer]

I don't think this is going the way Tim expected. Sort of like his take on Crimea....

I'm not a bigot.

Now I know you're not Jewish.

 

[timschochet]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

I didn't say Ukranians, I wrote Ukraine- meaning the government. And just in case this was not clear the first time, I've clarified it in several posts.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

I didn't say Ukranians, I wrote Ukraine- meaning the government. And just in case this was not clear the first time, I've clarified it in several posts.

Bull****. You've talked extensively about how they worship this guy, that certain books are bestsellers, that they have statues of the guy. That isn't about the government. That's about the general populace. You can't sugar coat it or sweep it under the rug Tim. You hate Ukranians. It's as simple as that. Oh, and you're a hypocrite. Again.

 

[drummer]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

I didn't say Ukranians, I wrote Ukraine- meaning the government. And just in case this was not clear the first time, I've clarified it in several posts.

We're in the 21st century tim. Real Jews use calendars ya know.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I don't think this is going the way Tim expected. Sort of like his take on Crimea....

I don't care. I think what I think. I don't trust the Ukraine government because they continue to promote hatred of Jews. I have offered proof; you can accept it or reject it. I'm not a bigot. There are some people here who truly seem to dislike me. That makes me sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.

I don't dislike you. I find that you can, on occasion, be a bit pompous, and a little disingenuous, and your views tend to be a little more close-minded and biased than you would care to admit, but I don't dislike you or your views. Its just another voice in a sea of opinions.

 

[timschochet]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

I didn't say Ukranians, I wrote Ukraine- meaning the government. And just in case this was not clear the first time, I've clarified it in several posts.

Bull****. You've talked extensively about how they worship this guy, that certain books are bestsellers, that they have statues of the guy. That isn't about the government. That's about the general populace. You can't sugar coat it or sweep it under the rug Tim. You hate Ukranians. It's as simple as that. Oh, and you're a hypocrite. Again.

I don't hate anyone. I dislike and distrust Ukraine as a country same as I do with Iran. But I don't hate Iranians at all- in fact I work with many of them and respect them very much. Ive only known a few Ukrainians in my life, but they seemed fine. People are individuals- a few bad, most good IMO. Governments and countries are another matter entirely.

 

[drummer]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

I didn't say Ukranians, I wrote Ukraine- meaning the government. And just in case this was not clear the first time, I've clarified it in several posts.

Bull****. You've talked extensively about how they worship this guy, that certain books are bestsellers, that they have statues of the guy. That isn't about the government. That's about the general populace. You can't sugar coat it or sweep it under the rug Tim. You hate Ukranians. It's as simple as that. Oh, and you're a hypocrite. Again.

I don't hate anyone. I dislike and distrust Ukraine as a country same as I do with Iran. But I don't hate Iranians at all- in fact I work with many of them and respect them very much. Ive only known a few Ukrainians in my life, but they seemed fine. People are individuals- a few bad, most good IMO. Governments and countries are another matter entirely.

I'd hate the English more if I were you. Centuries of genocide at their hands, ethnic cleansing, etc. Oh wait, you're not Jewish.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

I didn't say Ukranians, I wrote Ukraine- meaning the government. And just in case this was not clear the first time, I've clarified it in several posts.

Bull****. You've talked extensively about how they worship this guy, that certain books are bestsellers, that they have statues of the guy. That isn't about the government. That's about the general populace. You can't sugar coat it or sweep it under the rug Tim. You hate Ukranians. It's as simple as that. Oh, and you're a hypocrite. Again.

I don't hate anyone. I dislike and distrust Ukraine as a country same as I do with Iran. But I don't hate Iranians at all- in fact I work with many of them and respect them very much. Ive only known a few Ukrainians in my life, but they seemed fine. People are individuals- a few bad, most good IMO. Governments and countries are another matter entirely.

Keep trying to sugarcoat it. What did you mean when you disparaged the "country" of Ukraine by saying a particular book that you find abhorrent is a best seller? What did you mean when you said "they" worshipped a person you find abhorrent? You're clearly generalizing about the populace of Ukraine. I realize that's an ugly truth to you, but it's a truth regardless, no matter how much you try to pretend you're not talking about the people of the country.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think this is going the way Tim expected. Sort of like his take on Crimea....

I don't care. I think what I think. I don't trust the Ukraine government because they continue to promote hatred of Jews. I have offered proof; you can accept it or reject it. I'm not a bigot. There are some people here who truly seem to dislike me. That makes me sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.

I don't dislike you. I find that you can, on occasion, be a bit pompous, and a little disingenuous, and your views tend to be a little more close-minded and biased than you would care to admit, but I don't dislike you or your views. Its just another voice in a sea of opinions.

I don't dislike you either. I disagree with you a lot (especially about Israel) but its never been on a personal basis. You've never called me a piece of #### or a sociopath or a hypocrite or a liar. I expect to be heavily criticized because sometimes my views are strong and unpopular, but I have to admit this gets a little tiresome.

 

[drummer]

I don't think this is going the way Tim expected. Sort of like his take on Crimea....

I don't care. I think what I think. I don't trust the Ukraine government because they continue to promote hatred of Jews. I have offered proof; you can accept it or reject it. I'm not a bigot. There are some people here who truly seem to dislike me. That makes me sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.

I don't dislike you. I find that you can, on occasion, be a bit pompous, and a little disingenuous, and your views tend to be a little more close-minded and biased than you would care to admit, but I don't dislike you or your views. Its just another voice in a sea of opinions.

I don't dislike you either. I disagree with you a lot (especially about Israel) but its never been on a personal basis. You've never called me a piece of #### or a sociopath or a hypocrite or a liar. I expect to be heavily criticized because sometimes my views are strong and unpopular, but I have to admit this gets a little tiresome.

tim, you of all people should realize that we only do business here, and it's never personal. I deal with trolls. So I know it's business with you.

 

[drummer]

This thread needs more feral cats and Jews

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

I didn't say Ukranians, I wrote Ukraine- meaning the government. And just in case this was not clear the first time, I've clarified it in several posts.

Sorry, but it's a hateful place, and always has been.

Right, the people aren't hateful, just the place.

 

[timschochet]

I freely admit to an intense dislike and distrust of Ukraine. No matter how bad Putin is acting, Ukraine are not good people.

How do you define "hate"?

I didn't say Ukranians, I wrote Ukraine- meaning the government. And just in case this was not clear the first time, I've clarified it in several posts.

Sorry, but it's a hateful place, and always has been.

Right, the people aren't hateful, just the place.

Yeah well that's the way I feel about Ukraine, Iran, Uganda, Syria, a few other countries where awful stuff has happened and they dont seem to mind.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now that that's finished.

Back to the facts.

If anyone is interested this is Putin's speech.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

There are a few things to glean from this but one I found interesting was the reliance on the UN's, US's, West's recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation, which Russia did in fact very greatly give a damn about.

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

There's nothing even approaching acceptable in anything Putin or Russia has said or done here, but I will say, and said then, that recognizing Kosovo back then was a bad idea for a number of reasons.

This was also the basis for Russia's carving out Kosovo-sized South Ossetia as an "independent nation", which is absolutely nuts, and this kind of ###-tat behavior would seem infantile if it weren't so serious.

 

[timschochet]

Why did we recognize Kosovo? I can't remember the details.

 

[drummer]

Why did we recognize Kosovo? I can't remember the details.

Same reason why you don't remember the English.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't think this is going the way Tim expected. Sort of like his take on Crimea....

I don't care. I think what I think. I don't trust the Ukraine government because they continue to promote hatred of Jews. I have offered proof; you can accept it or reject it. I'm not a bigot. There are some people here who truly seem to dislike me. That makes me sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.

 

[shader]

Obama sanctions more individuals! I seriously think he would be better off saying nothing at all. Russians are laughing at these sanctions.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think this is going the way Tim expected. Sort of like his take on Crimea....

I don't care. I think what I think. I don't trust the Ukraine government because they continue to promote hatred of Jews. I have offered proof; you can accept it or reject it. I'm not a bigot. There are some people here who truly seem to dislike me. That makes me sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.

I'm listening to Warren Zevon's "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" at the moment.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Putin's speech and his accusation that we are selective in recogning a people's right to self-determination- like Saints points out, that's true, and it's bitten us before. British historian Paul Johnson has long pointed out that one of the worst ideas to come out of the 20th century was this notion that any group of people could seek independence at any time. It was first pushed forward by Woodrow Wilson (not coincidentally a Southerner and an admirer of the Confederacy) and since accepted in principle by almost all presidents both Republican and Democrat. It has led to one calamity after another, and to this day it makes it difficult for us to condemn what happened in Crimea.

 

[rascal]

Now that that's finished.

Back to the facts.

If anyone is interested this is Putin's speech.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

There are a few things to glean from this but one I found interesting was the reliance on the UN's, US's, West's recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation, which Russia did in fact very greatly give a damn about.

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the countrys central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence, and General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence. Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law. End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

There's nothing even approaching acceptable in anything Putin or Russia has said or done here, but I will say, and said then, that recognizing Kosovo back then was a bad idea for a number of reasons.

This was also the basis for Russia's carving out Kosovo-sized South Ossetia as an "independent nation", which is absolutely nuts, and this kind of ###-tat behavior would seem infantile if it weren't so serious.

Wow....absolute ownage by putin.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Regarding Putin's speech and his accusation that we are selective in recogning a people's right to self-determination- like Saints points out, that's true, and it's bitten us before. British historian Paul Johnson has long pointed out that one of the worst ideas to come out of the 20th century was this notion that any group of people could seek independence at any time. It was first pushed forward by Woodrow Wilson (not coincidentally a Southerner and an admirer of the Confederacy) and since accepted in principle by almost all presidents both Republican and Democrat. It has led to one calamity after another, and to this day it makes it difficult for us to condemn what happened in Crimea.

Bull####. It would have been very easy to step in if the US had wanted to - 1st gulf war was ostensibly to push Iraq out of Kuwait. US simply needed to say, Ukraine is our ally, and we will defend her sovereignty. We would have revved up the war machine, sabers would have rattled, and when push came to shove, Russia would have left Crimea, with a new treaty/lease in place for their shipyard/port - which I think was really the driving force for Russia all along.

The reality is that this move by Russia does not impact the US financially, like Iraq taking over Kuwait had the potential to do. This is also a much more regional European conflict that needs European leadership to resolve.

This would have been stamped "NFW" by anyone doing a cost-benefit analysis. (Not Financially Worthwhile)

 

[TheIronSheik]

Now that that's finished.

Back to the facts.

If anyone is interested this is Putin's speech.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

There are a few things to glean from this but one I found interesting was the reliance on the UN's, US's, West's recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation, which Russia did in fact very greatly give a damn about.

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the countrys central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence, and General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence. Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law. End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

There's nothing even approaching acceptable in anything Putin or Russia has said or done here, but I will say, and said then, that recognizing Kosovo back then was a bad idea for a number of reasons.

This was also the basis for Russia's carving out Kosovo-sized South Ossetia as an "independent nation", which is absolutely nuts, and this kind of ###-tat behavior would seem infantile if it weren't so serious.

Wow....absolute ownage by putin.

Yeah, but Putin has Cal Poly winning it all. So, we'll see who laughs last.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now that that's finished.

Back to the facts.

If anyone is interested this is Putin's speech.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

There are a few things to glean from this but one I found interesting was the reliance on the UN's, US's, West's recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation, which Russia did in fact very greatly give a damn about.

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the countrys central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence, and General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence. Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law. End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

There's nothing even approaching acceptable in anything Putin or Russia has said or done here, but I will say, and said then, that recognizing Kosovo back then was a bad idea for a number of reasons.

This was also the basis for Russia's carving out Kosovo-sized South Ossetia as an "independent nation", which is absolutely nuts, and this kind of ###-tat behavior would seem infantile if it weren't so serious.

Wow....absolute ownage by putin.

Yeah, but Putin has Cal Poly winning it all. So, we'll see who laughs last.

I'm going to guess Russia always bet on Bear... the Baylor Bears.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now that that's finished.

Back to the facts.

If anyone is interested this is Putin's speech.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

There are a few things to glean from this but one I found interesting was the reliance on the UN's, US's, West's recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation, which Russia did in fact very greatly give a damn about.

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the countrys central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence, and General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence. Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law. End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

There's nothing even approaching acceptable in anything Putin or Russia has said or done here, but I will say, and said then, that recognizing Kosovo back then was a bad idea for a number of reasons.

This was also the basis for Russia's carving out Kosovo-sized South Ossetia as an "independent nation", which is absolutely nuts, and this kind of ###-tat behavior would seem infantile if it weren't so serious.

Wow....absolute ownage by putin.

Tell you what, those couple 1-2 hour phone calls between Obama and Putin must have been quite an earful, probably didn't go down like the prez expected.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Yeah, but Putin has Cal Poly winning it all. So, we'll see who laughs last.

He's got a Super Bowl ring, I think that trumps mom jeans

 

[timschochet]

Now that that's finished.

Back to the facts.

If anyone is interested this is Putin's speech.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

There are a few things to glean from this but one I found interesting was the reliance on the UN's, US's, West's recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation, which Russia did in fact very greatly give a damn about.

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the countrys central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence, and General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence. Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law. End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

There's nothing even approaching acceptable in anything Putin or Russia has said or done here, but I will say, and said then, that recognizing Kosovo back then was a bad idea for a number of reasons.

This was also the basis for Russia's carving out Kosovo-sized South Ossetia as an "independent nation", which is absolutely nuts, and this kind of ###-tat behavior would seem infantile if it weren't so serious.

Wow....absolute ownage by putin.

Yeah, but Putin has Cal Poly winning it all. So, we'll see who laughs last.

I'm going to guess Russia always bet on Bear... the Baylor Bears.

Bruins are bears.

 

[jonessed]

Regarding Putin's speech and his accusation that we are selective in recogning a people's right to self-determination- like Saints points out, that's true, and it's bitten us before. British historian Paul Johnson has long pointed out that one of the worst ideas to come out of the 20th century was this notion that any group of people could seek independence at any time. It was first pushed forward by Woodrow Wilson (not coincidentally a Southerner and an admirer of the Confederacy) and since accepted in principle by almost all presidents both Republican and Democrat. It has led to one calamity after another, and to this day it makes it difficult for us to condemn what happened in Crimea.

A vote in a recently occupied territory under leadership installed by an occupying force doesn't hold much weight as far as I'm concerned.

This is way Putin went on that ridiculous campaign of pretending the troops doing most of the legwork weren't Russian.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Regarding Putin's speech and his accusation that we are selective in recogning a people's right to self-determination- like Saints points out, that's true, and it's bitten us before. British historian Paul Johnson has long pointed out that one of the worst ideas to come out of the 20th century was this notion that any group of people could seek independence at any time. It was first pushed forward by Woodrow Wilson (not coincidentally a Southerner and an admirer of the Confederacy) and since accepted in principle by almost all presidents both Republican and Democrat. It has led to one calamity after another, and to this day it makes it difficult for us to condemn what happened in Crimea.

Bull####. It would have been very easy to step in if the US had wanted to - 1st gulf war was ostensibly to push Iraq out of Kuwait. US simply needed to say, Ukraine is our ally, and we will defend her sovereignty. We would have revved up the war machine, sabers would have rattled, and when push came to shove, Russia would have left Crimea, with a new treaty/lease in place for their shipyard/port - which I think was really the driving force for Russia all along.

The reality is that this move by Russia does not impact the US financially, like Iraq taking over Kuwait had the potential to do. This is also a much more regional European conflict that needs European leadership to resolve.

This would have been stamped "NFW" by anyone doing a cost-benefit analysis. (Not Financially Worthwhile)

The Gulf War, or Iraq War 1, that is a precedent.

What's funny about that is our SOS, John Kerry, voted against that war, but for the Iraq War 2, which to me (all others things aside) was less justified from the standpoint of international law.

And now here is the same man calling Russia a bully and suggesting Putin is living in the wrong century, that's rich.

However, IMO, defending Kuwait was the right thing to do. I would say those lines along the Iraq and Kuwait border - like all the borders in the mid east - were pretty arbitrarily drawn, by folks like Gertrude Bell and TE Lawrence and King Faisal and Winston Churchill, sometimes literally in the sand on the spot, but they were borders. And if there was no oil there then I'd say the law had to be defended just the same, of course if there was no oil there then Hussein probably would not have been going in there in the first place.

However, you can't ignore the fact that Hussein was a tomato can compared to Russia. Russia is a big bad mfer on the world stage and above all other things they have enough real WMD to make the world spin the other direction. So no not all aggressors are created equal.

 

[jonessed]

Obama sanctions more individuals! I seriously think he would be better off saying nothing at all. Russians are laughing at these sanctions.

I think Russia's retaliation by sanctioning Obama, Boehner, Reid, etc. demonstrate just how silly and irrelevant they are.

 

[cstu]

What's funny about that is our SOS, John Kerry, voted against that war, but for the Iraq War 2, which to me (all others things aside) was less justified from the standpoint of international law.

In the case of Iraq War 2, Congress did not authorize an invasion, but rather gave Bush the authorization to use force in order to defend the U.S. or enforce UNSC resolutions. Bush manufactured the WMD threat as a excuse to go to war under the 'defending the U.S." part of the 2002 Iraq Resolution since there was no UNSC resolution supporting the use of force.

Link

 

[Short Corner]

Regarding Putin's speech and his accusation that we are selective in recogning a people's right to self-determination- like Saints points out, that's true, and it's bitten us before. British historian Paul Johnson has long pointed out that one of the worst ideas to come out of the 20th century was this notion that any group of people could seek independence at any time. It was first pushed forward by Woodrow Wilson (not coincidentally a Southerner and an admirer of the Confederacy) and since accepted in principle by almost all presidents both Republican and Democrat. It has led to one calamity after another, and to this day it makes it difficult for us to condemn what happened in Crimea.

A vote in a recently occupied territory under leadership installed by an occupying force doesn't hold much weight as far as I'm concerned.

You mean like in Iraq?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What's funny about that is our SOS, John Kerry, voted against that war, but for the Iraq War 2, which to me (all others things aside) was less justified from the standpoint of international law.

In the case of Iraq War 2, Congress did not authorize an invasion, but rather gave Bush the authorization to use force in order to defend the U.S. or enforce UNSC resolutions. Bush manufactured the WMD threat as a excuse to go to war under the 'defending the U.S." part of the 2002 Iraq Resolution since there was no UNSC resolution supporting the use of force.

Link

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's why I said "all other things aside" - he voted for it. He had more reason to vote for Iraq War 1 than even that resolution; pleeeennnttty of Demos voted against it.

 

[jonessed]

Regarding Putin's speech and his accusation that we are selective in recogning a people's right to self-determination- like Saints points out, that's true, and it's bitten us before. British historian Paul Johnson has long pointed out that one of the worst ideas to come out of the 20th century was this notion that any group of people could seek independence at any time. It was first pushed forward by Woodrow Wilson (not coincidentally a Southerner and an admirer of the Confederacy) and since accepted in principle by almost all presidents both Republican and Democrat. It has led to one calamity after another, and to this day it makes it difficult for us to condemn what happened in Crimea.

A vote in a recently occupied territory under leadership installed by an occupying force doesn't hold much weight as far as I'm concerned.

You mean like in Iraq?

There was never a vote to split Iraq and have a portion of it annexed by another country.

 

[Short Corner]

What's funny about that is our SOS, John Kerry, voted against that war, but for the Iraq War 2, which to me (all others things aside) was less justified from the standpoint of international law.

In the case of Iraq War 2, Congress did not authorize an invasion, but rather gave Bush the authorization to use force in order to defend the U.S. or enforce UNSC resolutions. Bush manufactured the WMD threat as a excuse to go to war under the 'defending the U.S." part of the 2002 Iraq Resolution since there was no UNSC resolution supporting the use of force.

Link

A WMD threat wasn't necessary to enforce UNSC Resolutions.

 

[cstu]

Regarding Putin's speech and his accusation that we are selective in recogning a people's right to self-determination- like Saints points out, that's true, and it's bitten us before. British historian Paul Johnson has long pointed out that one of the worst ideas to come out of the 20th century was this notion that any group of people could seek independence at any time. It was first pushed forward by Woodrow Wilson (not coincidentally a Southerner and an admirer of the Confederacy) and since accepted in principle by almost all presidents both Republican and Democrat. It has led to one calamity after another, and to this day it makes it difficult for us to condemn what happened in Crimea.

A vote in a recently occupied territory under leadership installed by an occupying force doesn't hold much weight as far as I'm concerned.

This is way Putin went on that ridiculous campaign of pretending the troops doing most of the legwork weren't Russian.

It's ridiculous for anyone to believe it was an honest vote. Russian troops were the streets, there were no public debates arguing for staying Ukrainian or becoming Russian, nothing. The vote was a joke.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's not get hijacked here.

The point of the Iraq War in this discussion is that we did indeed defend Kuwait in the first go-round, but didn't here because Russia is a whole other super-dangerous opponent of a whole other kind.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Regarding Putin's speech and his accusation that we are selective in recogning a people's right to self-determination- like Saints points out, that's true, and it's bitten us before. British historian Paul Johnson has long pointed out that one of the worst ideas to come out of the 20th century was this notion that any group of people could seek independence at any time. It was first pushed forward by Woodrow Wilson (not coincidentally a Southerner and an admirer of the Confederacy) and since accepted in principle by almost all presidents both Republican and Democrat. It has led to one calamity after another, and to this day it makes it difficult for us to condemn what happened in Crimea.

A vote in a recently occupied territory under leadership installed by an occupying force doesn't hold much weight as far as I'm concerned.

This is way Putin went on that ridiculous campaign of pretending the troops doing most of the legwork weren't Russian.

It's ridiculous for anyone to believe it was an honest vote. Russian troops were the streets, there were no public debates arguing for staying Ukrainian or becoming Russian, nothing. The vote was a joke.

Does anyone else get confused when jonessed and cstu talk to each other. Those avatars really trip me up.