|
|
Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union
Source: BBC
That's not good.
|
On March 17 2014 04:32 promiseme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 04:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 17 2014 04:24 promiseme wrote:On March 17 2014 04:05 hunts wrote: Show nested quote +
I guess the irony being that with their state of economy and military their nukes are the only thing saving them from being blown off the face of the earth for how they are acting. Of course we all know that no one in power in russia is quite stupid enough to push the nuke button because they would end up as a giant hole in the ground just as fast.
you think countries breaking international law with illegal invasions should be blown off the face of the earth? Its not even illeagal, its just whats your media says. Actually the president of Ukrain and goverment of Creamea (both democraticly elected) officially asked Putin to send troops to protect ppl that doesnt aggree with coup d'etat and ppl that selfcalled themself in power, which never been elected to such role. Not a single gun shoot, just protective reasons, and ppl that they are protecting welcomes them with great enthusiasm. Yea totally illegal brutal military aggression and occupation, obvious xD. Not brutal military aggression (ie. war), but occupation yes. occupation means you take control of the territory in all ways, but politicaly Creame is totaly free noone took down their goverment and set a new one. They can make their own desicions, well it was their desicion to invite russians military to help them. So.. Not sure you can call it an occupation, Its a terminology question, if you think so, ok. Except military occupation occurred before any official calls from their government. Weird how that works out ain't it?
|
On March 17 2014 04:29 promiseme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 04:24 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 17 2014 04:05 hunts wrote:On March 17 2014 03:32 Ghanburighan wrote:
^ That's ludicrous. Not only don't you argue your point but your best example of legitimate elections is Afghanistan? That's the bar they need to jump over, be better than Afghanistan?! The 2010 Afghanistan elections were reported by the OSCE as having `dramatic levels of fraud, violence and highly disputed outcomes were apparent, which did not contribute to fostering credibility of and public confidence in the democratic process.' Woooo, accept the referendum!
***
On actual news, seems like Russia is escalating its rhetoric ahead of tomorrow:
I guess the irony being that with their state of economy and military their nukes are the only thing saving them from being blown off the face of the earth for how they are acting. Of course we all know that no one in power in russia is quite stupid enough to push the nuke button because they would end up as a giant hole in the ground just as fast. Not really, but in any case, this is among the most ridiculous things I've seen stated in this thread. Also, doing about 5 seconds of digging turns up that this journalist Dmitry Kiselev is known for his hate speech and extreme comments. Way to take things out of context guys because one nutjob said something. We have a ton of those in the US too, even in California of all places. Also, what nunez said. :x exactly, Kiselev's programe based on high emotional patriotic speeches, that what he does not only for Creamea but, in general, thats the format of the program, it has nothing to do with what ppl actually think and officials position.
Since when does "turning the US into nuclear ashes" qualify as a "highly emotional patriotic speech"? lol
|
On March 17 2014 03:44 promiseme wrote:Show nested quote +I'm blown away by the fact that there's people out there who actually believe that this is a legit, democratic vote. I'm not exaggerating, i'm absolutely baffled that there will be people trying to use this referendum as an argument. erhm, fly to Crimea yourself and ask ppl what they want/wanted? It was never a secret that Cremea have been pro Russian for years. Also there is like 70% of population are ethnic russians. So there was no reason to rige the vote. And results was really obvious for anyone who has any clue about the region. Does some ppl really think they rigged the vote? lol, there was no reason to do it, even if they wanted, cos ppl vote themselfs as needed. Russians want to join Russia, what a surprise. xD
57% are Russians. Yes, there was no reason to rig it but like all Russian elections they were rigged anyway.
|
On March 17 2014 04:32 promiseme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 04:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 17 2014 04:24 promiseme wrote:On March 17 2014 04:05 hunts wrote: Show nested quote +
I guess the irony being that with their state of economy and military their nukes are the only thing saving them from being blown off the face of the earth for how they are acting. Of course we all know that no one in power in russia is quite stupid enough to push the nuke button because they would end up as a giant hole in the ground just as fast.
you think countries breaking international law with illegal invasions should be blown off the face of the earth? Its not even illeagal, its just whats your media says. Actually the president of Ukrain and goverment of Creamea (both democraticly elected) officially asked Putin to send troops to protect ppl that doesnt aggree with coup d'etat and ppl that selfcalled themself in power, which never been elected to such role. Not a single gun shoot, just protective reasons, and ppl that they are protecting welcomes them with great enthusiasm. Yea totally illegal brutal military aggression and occupation, obvious xD. Not brutal military aggression (ie. war), but occupation yes. occupation means you take control of the territory in all ways, but politicaly Creame is totaly free noone took down their goverment and set a new one. They can make their own desicions, well it was their desicion to invite russians military to help them. So.. Not sure you can call it an occupation, Its a terminology question, if you think so, ok.
Except the moment the troops arrived, they went to the Crimean parliament where they had a 4 am vote to which the same troops barred access in which a politician from a party with previously only 3 seats (out of 80) came to power. Afterwards, many MPs stated that even though their vote was counted, they were in fact not present, and they believe that the quorum was not met for the vote.
Member of the Crimean parliament Nicolay Sumulidi voted for the proposal to hold a referendum on joining Russia. At least this is what the official voting records say. The problem is, however, that he was never present. It was 04:30 in the morning on Thursday last week that several dozens of masked soldiers, armed with Kalashnikov-rifles, stormed into the regional assembly in Simferopol. At dawn, the Russian tricolor was flying over the parliament building. Russia’s president Vladimir Putin says he has no plans to annex the Crimea, but maintains that the citizens must be allowed to decide for themselves. Aftenposten’s correspondent interviewed a dozen members of the regional assembly, and talked to a number of central players and eyewitnesses. The conclusion is that the people’s will is far from deciding events in the Crimea. *** Rules require that at least 51 representatives be present in order to hold a qualified vote. The new goverment says 61 members of parliament took part. Aftenposten’s research shows, however, that only 36 were present. - The system which registers who voted, and what we voted for or against, shows I did cast a vote. But I was not there. Neither were a large majority of my colleagues, says Sumulidi. Representative Irina Klyuyeva also participated in the vote, according to the official records, but she was not present either. Source.
|
On March 17 2014 03:57 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 02:53 Sub40APM wrote:On March 17 2014 00:41 nunez wrote:On March 16 2014 16:22 Sub40APM wrote:
....what? Since its independence in 1991, the American people have supported Ukraine’s transition to democracy and a free market economy with over $5 billion in assistance. srcOn March 16 2014 16:56 semantics wrote:
Conspiracy crap taking really out of context words into suggesting money the US foreign aid and investments over the year somehow equates to money used for a coup. By that shitty out of context not factually backed up logic Putin was offering the yanukovych Ukraine "assistance" money only to take Ukraine into Russia as a puppet state of moscow. Because apparently all you have to do is take words out of context and spew random crap for it to be true. As if a person would flaunt CIA involvement for a speech at a nonprofit event. thinking this skrill isn't spent empowering whatever political party that is willing to bend over for it (in this case the opposition) and labelling it as 'conspiracy crap' is dellusional. why do you think f.ex NED-money is flowing into ukraine? charity work? boy scouts? NED was founded in 1983 at the initiative of Cold War hardliners in the Reagan administration, including then-CIA Director William J. Casey. Essentially, NED took over what had been the domain of the CIA, i.e. funneling money to support foreign political movements that would take the U.S. side against the Soviet Union. src Which one of your sources proves that the US has built up the Right Sector using 5 billion dollars, I might need a bit more hand holding than a link showing that the US spends money on foreign aid -- Canada does too, where are their fascists coups ? -- and the right sector. I'd also like some evidence showing that the national endowment for democracy's programs to strengthen things like rule of law or freedom of expression translated into fascist coups, perhaps one that doesnt make unsubstantiated claim that the NED caused the coup or that relies on who the founders of the NED were to prove NED is forever tainted by evil. NED's raison d'être seems to be empowering foreign groups that will allow american vampires, not commie vampires, to extract precious bodily fluids from their countries. far-right and fascists definately fits the bill in ukraine (or usually in general). you don't think NED money is included in the 5 billion figure?
Are you being serious here or edgy?
|
Hm, i missed that they dissolved the crimean parliament yesterday, ..
It's actually really hard to keep up, so much bullshitting all around. It seems like people over there act like they've seen democratic processes on TV, kinda, and are trying to "copy" them. Hard to explain what i mean. A huge clusterfuck.
edit:
All parties involved.
|
On March 17 2014 04:48 m4ini wrote:
Hm, i missed that they dissolved the crimean parliament yesterday.
Ukraine voted to dissolve it.
Needless to say, they were ignored.
|
On March 17 2014 04:35 darkness wrote:Source: BBCThat's not good.
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy.
Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council.
The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution.
According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so.
source
Legitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected?
|
On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy.
Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia.
If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence.
On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. sourceLegitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected?
What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power.
|
On March 17 2014 04:46 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 03:57 nunez wrote:On March 17 2014 02:53 Sub40APM wrote:On March 17 2014 00:41 nunez wrote:On March 16 2014 16:22 Sub40APM wrote:
....what? Since its independence in 1991, the American people have supported Ukraine’s transition to democracy and a free market economy with over $5 billion in assistance. srcOn March 16 2014 16:56 semantics wrote:
Conspiracy crap taking really out of context words into suggesting money the US foreign aid and investments over the year somehow equates to money used for a coup. By that shitty out of context not factually backed up logic Putin was offering the yanukovych Ukraine "assistance" money only to take Ukraine into Russia as a puppet state of moscow. Because apparently all you have to do is take words out of context and spew random crap for it to be true. As if a person would flaunt CIA involvement for a speech at a nonprofit event. thinking this skrill isn't spent empowering whatever political party that is willing to bend over for it (in this case the opposition) and labelling it as 'conspiracy crap' is dellusional. why do you think f.ex NED-money is flowing into ukraine? charity work? boy scouts? NED was founded in 1983 at the initiative of Cold War hardliners in the Reagan administration, including then-CIA Director William J. Casey. Essentially, NED took over what had been the domain of the CIA, i.e. funneling money to support foreign political movements that would take the U.S. side against the Soviet Union. src Which one of your sources proves that the US has built up the Right Sector using 5 billion dollars, I might need a bit more hand holding than a link showing that the US spends money on foreign aid -- Canada does too, where are their fascists coups ? -- and the right sector. I'd also like some evidence showing that the national endowment for democracy's programs to strengthen things like rule of law or freedom of expression translated into fascist coups, perhaps one that doesnt make unsubstantiated claim that the NED caused the coup or that relies on who the founders of the NED were to prove NED is forever tainted by evil. NED's raison d'être seems to be empowering foreign groups that will allow american vampires, not commie vampires, to extract precious bodily fluids from their countries. far-right and fascists definately fits the bill in ukraine (or usually in general). you don't think NED money is included in the 5 billion figure? Are you being serious here or edgy?
both.
This indicates that NED may be using its grant making program to help open foreign markets to U.S. companies that were previously closed and to help promote the U.S.’s geopolitical and economic interests by financially supporting its military and economic partners.
...
This research does not find evidence that NED was successful at promoting democracy and economic freedom during the 1990s src
|
On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy. Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia. If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence.
Just like the Czechs welcomed Soviet brother liberators.
|
On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy. Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia. If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence. Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. sourceLegitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected? What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power.
I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism?
|
On March 17 2014 05:06 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy. Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia. If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence. Just like the Czechs welcomed Soviet brother liberators.
Or like how countries welcomed "American Freedom" - oh wait
|
On March 17 2014 05:08 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy. Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia. If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence. On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. sourceLegitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected? What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power. I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism?
In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal?
|
On March 17 2014 05:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:08 radiatoren wrote:On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy. Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia. If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence. On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. sourceLegitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected? What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power. I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism? In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal?
Some would consider the current Ukrainian government illegitimate and illegal so you really can't make that broad sweep assessment in principle. It comes down to how one considers the inherent and not legal legitimacy as well as many other factors.
|
On March 17 2014 05:11 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:08 radiatoren wrote:On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy. Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia. If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence. On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. sourceLegitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected? What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power. I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism? In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal? Some would consider the current Ukrainian government illegitimate and illegal so you really can't make that broad sweep assessment in principle. It comes down to how one considers the inherent and not legal legitimacy as well as many other factors.
That's my point though.
In principle, if a government is illegitimate, should we respect its decisions? I.e.: if an illegal government declares an action is illegal, what weight does such a declaration have?
|
On March 17 2014 05:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:08 radiatoren wrote:On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy. Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia. If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence. On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. sourceLegitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected? What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power. I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism? In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal?
Doesn't matter.
You have two ways: either both are illegal, or both are legal.
If you say, the ukrainian gov is illegal and should be adressed - okay. The referendum would be as illegal/void then.
If you say the referendum is legal, it's fine. Ukrainian government would be "as legal". And they voted (legally, in this case) to dissolve the crimean parliament, making the referendum void.
What about your views on legality?
|
If it's really true that over 70% of all Crimeans voted in favour of Russia then they must think that their (economic) future with Russia is brighter. Nationalistic sentiments alone can't really explain such a result.
|
On March 17 2014 05:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:11 Kupon3ss wrote:On March 17 2014 05:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:08 radiatoren wrote:On March 17 2014 05:04 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:
That is meaningless. The tatars and many ukrainians have kept far away from the election. What is more surprising is how 80+ % of the population was said to have voted. That sounds fishy. Oh please. A substantial majority of Crimea is in favor of rejoining Russia. If numbers don't convince you, take a look at how they respond to Russian military presence. Seems rather quiet and peaceful for an unwanted military presence. On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:Either way the vote is unrecognized internationally by the rest of UN security council. The ukrainian constitution doesn't allow this kind of separatist movement. It has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine according to chapter 10 article 135 of the ukrainian constitution. According to chapter 10 article 136 changes of the ministers of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea has to be approved by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Aksyonov is not so. sourceLegitimacy of the vote is not acceptable on those accounts. Even with an ousted president and a local guy elected illegally and under armed occupation it is not really their call. As far as I know Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is still legitimately elected? What about the legitimacy of the Ukranian government itself? As I recall, it wasn't democratically elected - it seized power. I explicitly avoided that issue in my reasoning. Whataboutism? In principle, do you consider the decisions of an illegitimate government to be legitimate and legal? Some would consider the current Ukrainian government illegitimate and illegal so you really can't make that broad sweep assessment in principle. It comes down to how one considers the inherent and not legal legitimacy as well as many other factors. That's my point though. In principle, if a government is illegitimate, should we respect its decisions? I.e.: if an illegal government declares an action is illegal, what weight does such a declaration have?
If an elected president acts in an undemocratic and criminal fashion, do we need to wait to elect him out of office? What weight does his word have if he enriches himself at the expense of the citizens?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
