|
|
On March 17 2014 05:15 Maenander wrote:
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.
Crimea's economy has taken a nosedive over the past 20 years, and it's a common sentiment that Crimea was robbed of its wealth by Kiev. That belief is definitely there, and I've seen more than a few bitter citizens passionately, bitterly defend such an assertion.
|
On March 17 2014 05:05 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 04:46 Sub40APM wrote: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. Show nested quote +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
Calling people vampires has a long and distinguished history with a certain set of people, nunez is just unconsciously carrying on a fine blood-soaked tradition dating back over a thousand years. The particular one he's consciously carrying on is over a hundred years old and was and is one of the favorite insults of a certain globally failed and murderous ideology. How calling people vampires accomplishes anything but self-satisfaction at being "edgy" is a mystery, but that is the point isn't it.
|
On March 17 2014 05:05 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 04:46 Sub40APM wrote: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. Show nested quote +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 Did you even read your source or did it come up through a quick google search?
Ill put it below the fold if you care, but the actual thing you cite paints a pretty contradictory picture, one that stands in contrast to the assured and unsubstantiated tone of the original article you posted as evidence that NED was a vehicle through which 5 billion dollars was funneled to the right sector by America
+ Show Spoiler +Even though NED grant money appears to have been appropriately awarded to countries based on their
need, the grant money did not have a significant impact on political and economic freedom. This calls into question the wisdom of using the U.S. government’s scarce resources to promote democracy and economic freedom – not only through NED, but in any similar manner. The thesis is against all American foreign aid. Officially, the U.S. government was neutral about the Chilean plebiscite, but it
recognized that the plebiscite was an opportunity for Chile to take a large step toward
democracy. Seizing the moment, the U.S. became involved in Chile through NED. From
its own funds, NED sent $600,000 to opposition groups in Chile. Many of these groups
were reluctant to accept the money because they were uncomfortable using foreign
money to influence Chile’s domestic politics. However, most groups did eventually
accept the money because they recognized that their chances of winning without it were
unlikely (Christian 15 June 1988, A1). Congress later gave NED another $1 million to
distribute in Chile. Pinochet’s government made U.S. support for its opposition a central
campaign issue, but was unable to win the plebiscite (Christian 15 June 1988, A14).
NED supports pro-Democracy, anti-Military government forces in Chile -- you know, the military dictatorship they helped to create in the first place --- In reaction to the Clinton administration’s request, the House voted to eliminate
all funding for NED by a vote of 243-181 (Corn 1993b, 57; Doherty 1993, 1672).
NED’s defeat in the House was bipartisan – two-thirds of Republicans and a slight
36
majority of Democrats voted for its elimination NED appears not to be a tool the government actual wants... Critics have described NED as a “political sacred cow” (Corn 1997, 27), valued
as a source of pork-barrel projects and lavish political junkets abroad for Washington’s
elites (Carothers 1994, 123; Corn 1992, 648). These elites include high-level
“Republican and Democratic party activists, conservative trade unionists, and free
marketeers” who use the organization to further their own agendas (Corn 1993b, 57).
Critics further allege that NED provides its spoils systematically in an attempt to gain
friends that can help it politically (Samuels 1995, 53). In essence, the elites use NED for
generous perks, and the organization uses the elites for political gain and protection. This
type of “inside-the-beltway political logrolling,” according to critics, makes it the type of
program that needs to be abolished (Conry 1994, 16). or it turns out NED is some sort of corruption mechanism inside DC without any actual foreign interests at all Look at his top recipients, Ukraine received less money than Poland, Russia and China and slightly more than Cuba and Romania
|
On March 17 2014 05:15 m4ini 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? 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?
What is this position based on?
The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you.
On March 17 2014 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:13 LegalLord wrote: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?
Generally democratic governments have a provision called impeachment. Good place to start.
|
On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 04:35 darkness wrote:Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union 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. 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?
If you want to go by the Ukrainian constitution, would't that make the current government not legitimate and
Yanukovich still de facto president?
|
On March 17 2014 05:09 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:06 Sub40APM 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. Just like the Czechs welcomed Soviet brother liberators. Or like how countries welcomed "American Freedom" - oh wait
So? I know your edgy hatred of America is supposed to act as the end of the conversation -- and you arent the first person who brought it up but again so what? Plenty of countries who dont have history of imperialism have criticized this invasion too: Sweden, Denmark, Canada.
|
On March 17 2014 05:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:15 m4ini 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? 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? What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you.
Still, the referendum is illegal, since it's not conform with the constitution.
Understand what i mean? You can't call a illegal referendum (and it is, as was pointed out just a page ago in detail) legal just because you like that outcome more.
It's either legal or illegal, that's what i'm saying. You can't tell people that the ukrainian government doesn't have power because they came to power "illegal", yet demand respect for an equally illegal vote.
|
On March 17 2014 05:23 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 17 2014 04:35 darkness wrote:Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union 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. 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? If you want to go by the Ukrainian constitution, would't that make the current government not legitimate and Yanukovich still de facto president? Totally. He should come back to Kyiv instead of hiding in Rostov.
|
Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev.
|
On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote:
Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev.
Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 17 2014 05:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:15 m4ini 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? 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? What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you. Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:On March 17 2014 05:13 LegalLord wrote: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? Generally democratic governments have a provision called impeachment. Good place to start.
Yes, except for when the president changes the legal framework so that he becomes virtually untouchable. You do notice the problem here right?
|
On March 17 2014 05:24 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:15 m4ini 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? 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? What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you. Still, the referendum is illegal, since it's not confirm with the constitution. Understand what i mean? You can't call a illegal referendum (and it is, as was pointed out just a page ago in detail) legal just because you like that outcome more. It's either legal or illegal, that's what i'm saying. You can't tell people that the ukrainian government doesn't have power because they came to power "illegal", yet demand respect for an equally illegal vote.
Say the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. That would make the previous government legitimate - the one under Yanukovich. Yanukovich said that Crimea has the right to choose by referendum. So there's your legal support for it.
On March 17 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:15 m4ini 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? 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? What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you. On March 17 2014 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:On March 17 2014 05:13 LegalLord wrote: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? Generally democratic governments have a provision called impeachment. Good place to start. Yes, except for when the president changes the legal framework so that he becomes virtually untouchable. You do notice the problem here right?
The only problem I see is a decision of legality being made along party lines, which is exactly what the Ukrainian uprisings were.
|
On March 17 2014 05:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:24 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2014 05:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:15 m4ini 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? 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? What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you. Still, the referendum is illegal, since it's not confirm with the constitution. Understand what i mean? You can't call a illegal referendum (and it is, as was pointed out just a page ago in detail) legal just because you like that outcome more. It's either legal or illegal, that's what i'm saying. You can't tell people that the ukrainian government doesn't have power because they came to power "illegal", yet demand respect for an equally illegal vote. Say the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. That would make the previous government legitimate - the one under Yanukovich. Yanukovich said that Crimea has the right to choose by referendum. So there's your legal support for it.
What yanukovich said is completely irrelevant, even if he still would be considered president. It's unconstitutional, doesn't matter what he says. He can pledge for a vote to change the law, sure. That's it.
|
On March 17 2014 05:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:24 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2014 05:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2014 05:15 m4ini 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? 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? What is this position based on? The Ukrainan government was not democratically elected, but rather grabbed power through force. The referendum is a democratic process, supported by Crimeans and Russia has agreed to respect the decisions of that referendum. There's a difference for you. Still, the referendum is illegal, since it's not confirm with the constitution. Understand what i mean? You can't call a illegal referendum (and it is, as was pointed out just a page ago in detail) legal just because you like that outcome more. It's either legal or illegal, that's what i'm saying. You can't tell people that the ukrainian government doesn't have power because they came to power "illegal", yet demand respect for an equally illegal vote. Say the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. That would make the previous government legitimate - the one under Yanukovich. Yanukovich said that Crimea has the right to choose by referendum. So there's your legal support for it.
Its not within his powers to do that, but the Parliaments. Neither was inviting a Russian invasion, again the Parliament.
|
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.
Why is it surprising about 85 % people voting?
Are there no Ukrainians who are pro Russian,or we are seeing only Russian protesters in eastern pat of the country?
|
On March 17 2014 05:28 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote:
Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev. Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there.
What are you talking about? I'm sure if there was a vote in the other regions of eastern Ukraine maybe it wouldn't be around 90% but over 60% would be against whatever is running Kiev.
In other news Serbia is fucked for the next 4-5 years.
|
On March 17 2014 05:32 Liman wrote:Show nested quote +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. Why is it surprising about 85 % people voting? Are there no Ukrainians who are pro Russian,or we are seeing only Russian protesters in eastern pat of the country?
58% russians. Rest muslims and ukrainians. Crimean tatars (12% population) won't vote for russia. 24% ukrainians, and ALL of them plus some dark figures voted in favor of russia?
That's a bit hard to believe.
|
On March 17 2014 05:32 Liman wrote:Show nested quote +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. Why is it surprising about 85 % people voting? Are there no Ukrainians who are pro Russian,or we are seeing only Russian protesters in eastern pat of the country?
Are there are no Russians who are pro staying in a country where the government doesnt own all television channels and politicians change place every 4-7 years?
Thats the problem with having an election under occupation, its impossible to tell who actually wanted what.
|
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?
Please try to think for yourself, if laws were the only that should count there wouldn't be any revolution.
People try to ignore it because morality is subjective but in this case, it all comes down to it.
Kiev actual gov is not ilegal because the majority wanted the revolution, now strangely after one part of the country gets occupied, 93% of the people living there want to become russians. You know shortly after the French revolution and before Napoleon started to conquer Europe, parts of France were annexed by neighbouring countries. Strangely the new officials of these regions welcomed their neighbours.
This government is more legitimate than the one in Russia. This government even if a bit arbitrary is temporary and will organize new elections.
Anyway there is no point in discussing morality with you. You will do and say everything to protect your country's or etnicity's image even if it annexs part of another one. It goes to the point that you will repeat retarded arguments,the same arguments Hitler and Staline used.
|
On March 17 2014 05:33 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 05:28 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2014 05:25 zeo wrote:
Congratulations to the people of Crimea, over 93% of the 80% that went to vote are against the self proclaimed government in Kiev. Flamebating should be a bannable offense. Just putting that out there. In other news Serbia is fucked for the next 4-5 years.
Why? Didnt the party that you are member of implode? Or do you think the new government will re-take national press as they did under Milosevic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
