EPTUkraine Crisis - Page 194
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
[SuNdae]
Finland323 Posts
| ||
|
Undead1993
Germany17651 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:14 Fjodorov wrote: Yanukovich fled the country after using snipers on demonstrants. The parlament, including his own party, voted to remove Yanukovich. Elections are set for 25 may or something like that. that doesn't answer my question. in fact what yo usay is completely irrelevant to my question, i didn't say anything about yanukovich | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:12 r.Evo wrote: According to Putin he never gave such an order. Which, while possibly true, will be completely unverifiable by anyone. Still his responsability. Any president of any western country would be fired for this. | ||
|
Fjodorov
5007 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:15 [SuNdae] wrote: Seems like Putin is playing this perfectly while the western leaders stand around with their dicks caught in the zipper. After the russian reprenestatives performance at the UN meeting last night I think Putin was forced to bring his A game | ||
|
Twoflowers
Germany241 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:15 [SuNdae] wrote: Seems like Putin is playing this perfectly while the western leaders stand around with their dicks caught in the zipper. He would not have taken these peacekeeping actions if he wasn't 100% sure he was in the right. Russia has an obligation to help the people of Ukraine who have had their power taken away from them in a violent fashion. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:12 Undead1993 wrote: besides the policemen and defenders of their state who are being attacked by revolutionists, this is the worst part of this all, there was NO election after the revolution YET the western countries think Oleksandr Turchynov is legit. i don't understand this. maybe someone can explain it to me Most likely you will have to find someone who can dive into the Ukrainian constitution for that. Note that he isn't President of the Ukraine but *acting* President. Yanukovych was considered incapable of his duties as a President which is where the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada becomes acting President until elections can be held. He also has rather limited rights until that happens. My personal understanding of the situation is that the Russians claim the impeachment was not legitimate because at the time there were armed paramilitary forces forcing them to do so and because the only reason Yanukovych is incapable of acting as President is because he was being forced to flee the country out of fear for his life. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. | ||
|
Fjodorov
5007 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:16 Undead1993 wrote: that doesn't answer my question. in fact what yo usay is completely irrelevant to my question, i didn't say anything about yanukovich President kills his own citizens (+ all the corruption etc), flees the country. Someone has to be in charge so parlament votes for removing the president and as normal in these situations you have a temporary leadership untill elections which are said to be set soon, in may. How is this irrelevant to your post about elections legitimacy of ukrainean leadership? | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:18 Twoflowers wrote: Yanukovich was impeached and the parliament approved a new government. The parliament was elected democratically, so thats the legitimitation of the new government. The only controversial thing is that the constitution demands consultation of the supremecourt for teh impeachment. The supreme court was not approached on this matter since they were in Yanukovichs bag. Yanukovych was impeached by an illegitimate government, a decision made at gunpoint is hardly legitimate. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
Fjodorov
5007 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:19 zeo wrote: He would not have taken these peacekeeping actions if he wasn't 100% sure he was in the right. Russia has an obligation to help the people of Ukraine who have had their power taken away from them in a violent fashion. This obsession with strong leaders and presidents. The parlament is the main democratic body of a state. Please consider this | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote: Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. It is the responsibility of the government to listen to civil unrest, not strip them of protesting rights and shoot them in the face. That's not how democracy should work. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote: Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:12 Undead1993 wrote: besides the policemen and defenders of their state who are being attacked by revolutionists, this is the worst part of this all, there was NO election after the revolution YET the western countries think Oleksandr Turchynov is legit. i don't understand this. maybe someone can explain it to me What do you do? If you want someone to negotiate with, you have to have someone to negotiate with and that someone cannot be hiding in a foreign country. He cannot perform his duties of signing laws. As much as Turchynov may have democratic legitimacy problems if you look at the president in a vaccuum, he was chosen by a democratically elected parliament and he is available for performing presidential duties. | ||
|
Undead1993
Germany17651 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:20 Fjodorov wrote: President kills his own citizens (+ all the corruption etc), flees the country. Someone has to be in charge so parlament votes for removing the president and as normal in these situations you have a temporary leadership untill elections which are said to be set soon, in may. How is this irrelevant to your post about elections legitimacy of ukrainean leadership? i wanted to know if someone could explain me how this democracy stuff in the ukraine works. you jsut told me why yanukovich isn't a president anymore, which i knew. though your second answer includes some answers to my question. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:25 radiatoren wrote: What do you do? If you want someone to negotiate with, you have to have someone to negotiate with and that someone cannot be hiding in a foreign country. He cannot perform his duties of signing laws. As much as Turchynov may have democratic legitimacy problems if you look at the president in a vaccuum, he was chosen by a democratically elected parliament and he is available for performing presidential duties. Whichever way you look at it there were extremely violent thugs waiting outside of parliament making sure he got 'elected' | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:25 radiatoren wrote: What do you do? If you want someone to negotiate with, you have to have someone to negotiate with and that someone cannot be hiding in a foreign country. He cannot perform his duties of signing laws. As much as Turchynov may have democratic legitimacy problems if you look at the president in a vaccuum, he was chosen by a democratically elected parliament and he is available for performing presidential duties. Turchynov was not voted on in any shape or form. By no one. He was designated as acting President because he was voted for as speaker of the Verkhovna Rada on the 22nd. That's a very small but important difference. | ||
|
oo_Wonderful_oo
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:25 radiatoren wrote: What do you do? If you want someone to negotiate with, you have to have someone to negotiate with and that someone cannot be hiding in a foreign country. He cannot perform his duties of signing laws. As much as Turchynov may have democratic legitimacy problems if you look at the president in a vaccuum, he was chosen by a democratically elected parliament and he is available for performing presidential duties. You can't choose another president if you hadn't impeached previous one. That's all. So no, he's not available for do basically ANYTHING if we want to follow law at all, from every side. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote: A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated. | ||
| ||
