|
|
On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally?
|
On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally?
Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias?
And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree?
|
On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree?
Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent.
|
|
|
Do you honestly believe that those well organised troops in russian uniforms equipped with russian equipment in russian AFV's are honestly pro russian militia groups or self defence groups or whatever?
|
On March 20 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree? Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent.
I didn't see people in "russian" uniforms, most of the weapons in that part of the world is afaik russian-made, russian is pretty much their mother tongue so I would expect them to speak it fairly well and with Russian accent as well
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 19 2014 23:40 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:26 oneofthem wrote:
yea russia is the aggressor are you srs that doesn't matter. or, the context is more important then who started it first.
walking advertisement for tl gold right here
|
On March 20 2014 00:25 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree? Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent. I didn't see people in "russian" uniforms, most of the weapons in that part of the world is afaik russian-made, russian is pretty much their mother tongue so I would expect them to speak it fairly well and with Russian accent as well
Please, all of this was discussed in detail in this thread. You're misinformed, yet convinced you're right. Reading this thread will demonstrate to you that you're wrong, but you probably won't change your mind anyway so I won't bother re-posting everything again, derailing this thread even worse than it has been already.
|
On March 20 2014 00:25 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree? Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent. I didn't see people in "russian" uniforms, most of the weapons in that part of the world is afaik russian-made, russian is pretty much their mother tongue so I would expect them to speak it fairly well and with Russian accent as well
So they are just a regular Ivans checking up on the streets. Some buy luxury cars and some save up for legit Spetsnaz gear.
|
On March 20 2014 00:33 AlternativeEgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:25 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree? Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent. I didn't see people in "russian" uniforms, most of the weapons in that part of the world is afaik russian-made, russian is pretty much their mother tongue so I would expect them to speak it fairly well and with Russian accent as well So they are just a regular Ivans checking up on the streets. Some buy luxury cars and some save up for legit Spetsnaz gear.
Why buy a Lexus when you can travel around in a 2S1 mechanized howitzer.
|
On March 20 2014 00:25 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree? Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent. I didn't see people in "russian" uniforms, most of the weapons in that part of the world is afaik russian-made, russian is pretty much their mother tongue so I would expect them to speak it fairly well and with Russian accent as well
You are right about the language, but they have russian-made weapons AND russian equipment (choppers, vehicles, etc...) too much organization and resources to be only a "pro-russian militias". It has been an invasion with a referendum only for cosmetic purposes (a referendum without a period of disscusion and two sides who are defending their option).
|
On March 20 2014 00:33 AlternativeEgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:25 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree? Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent. I didn't see people in "russian" uniforms, most of the weapons in that part of the world is afaik russian-made, russian is pretty much their mother tongue so I would expect them to speak it fairly well and with Russian accent as well So they are just a regular Ivans checking up on the streets. Some buy luxury cars and some save up for legit Spetsnaz gear.
Luxury cars are overrated. If you get spec forces equipment, you can "get" yourself a luxury car at any time :D
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally?
You can't read or what? :D
Try to see something else in my sentence, not only words "troops" and "legal".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
pls stop slandering russia and ignore the eurasia fascism on the rise and rise. if the same rhetorical shit is pulled by an american president some people here would have an aneurysm
|
On March 20 2014 00:32 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:25 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree? Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent. I didn't see people in "russian" uniforms, most of the weapons in that part of the world is afaik russian-made, russian is pretty much their mother tongue so I would expect them to speak it fairly well and with Russian accent as well Please, all of this was discussed in detail in this thread. You're misinformed, yet convinced you're right. Reading this thread will demonstrate to you that you're wrong, but you probably won't change your mind anyway so I won't bother re-posting everything again, derailing this thread even worse than it has been already.
i don't see a consensus in this thread at all.
there are people posting the western opinions on ukraine and there are people posting the russian view.
you make it seem like there is a "wrong" opinion, which is only "wrong" when you consider the side you are on.
the truth isn't as black or white as it seems
basically there are 2 "illegetimate" governments (the one in kiev and the one in crimea) trying to establish control of crimea through use of force.
the kiev government doesn't want to withdraw it's troops because they say the referendum and governemnt in crimea is illegal and when they withdraw they would give up crimea.
the crimea government says the government in kiev is illegal and wants the ukrainian soldiers out because it's no longer ukrainian from their point of view and the ukrainian forces are the ones "occupying" their country now.
apparently klitschko wants to withdraw the ukrainian military from crimea and consider it a "temporarily occupied territory" (source). which is IMHO way more reasonable as the ukrainian minister of defense who wants his military to stay and defend themselves.
|
On March 19 2014 23:28 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:22 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 23:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity.
One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen.
You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now?
Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract. I highly doubt that contract allowed those troops to blockade roads into Crimea and blockade Ukrainian military bases inside Crimea. just look at the current situation from a russian perspective: crimea is no longer a part of the ukraine (this is a FACT right now, doesn't matter if you like it or not) the ukraine soldiers stationed in crimea have no business being there. the ukraine minister of defense (of the swoboda party) does not want to withdraw his soldiers and encourages them to use their weapons because he hopes when the situation escalates the west will interfere and help him out. and russia is the aggressor here? On March 19 2014 23:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:43 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:On March 19 2014 21:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Id say there is plenty of reason to doubt what the Crimea people want. It has been shown often enough that the numbers don't add up. If this was a fair referendum sure. Then they decided and its up to them but this wasn't a remotely fair referendum.
And ofc other countries are afraid. They have just been shown that all the promises they got are null and void while an angry bear at there borders is waking up. The west has send a clear message. You are on your own. No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true. The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help. It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. ah, must be the same as the agreement that the NATO won't expand past the iron curtain? "agreements" are held in high respect by both sides it seems. *sigh*, please educate yourself before you type. The foreign ministers of the US and Germany PROMISED to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand. This was never signed as an agreement. It's still a broken promise, but not a part of international law. Breaking it merely (but rightly) damaged the diplomatic relations between the US, Germany and the Russian Federation. An agreement is a signed document which does is binding before international law. i don't see any difference here? broken promise against broken promise. doesn't matter at all if it's written down or not. That basically amounts to sticking fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANANA". But should I ever buy a house from you, let's not sign a contract, I just promise to give you the money afterwards. Surely that's equally good in your eyes.
Verbal contracts are as binding as written ones in many countries. The only difference is the difficulty of proving the contents of the contract.
|
I'd like to recommend to everyone to AVOID using sarcasm. I know there's plenty of material for it; but this thread has a lot of non-native English speakers in it. Sarcasm is already hard to read over the internet, and it's even harder for non-native speakers. It makes for more miscommunication on an issue where we want clarity.
|
On March 20 2014 00:36 drkcid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:25 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On March 20 2014 00:16 anomalopidae wrote:On March 20 2014 00:05 hunts wrote:On March 19 2014 23:21 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
It's like cycle of this thread.
Every debates finish on argumant about troops who're legal but illegal.
Yes, troops legally blocking bases, walking around armed in the streets, threatening journalists and observers, threatening the ukranian fleet, and yes, killing a ukranian soldier. All legal right? We should send some US troops to defend US minorities in moscow and legally walk around with guns and kill russians, legally? Wasn't most of that stuff done by the pro-Russian militias? And I think you're kinda doing that in enough other places at the moment, wouldn't you agree? Pro-russian militias, in russian military uniforms, with russian weapons, and russian equipment, and russian military weapons, speaking russian with a russian accent. I didn't see people in "russian" uniforms, most of the weapons in that part of the world is afaik russian-made, russian is pretty much their mother tongue so I would expect them to speak it fairly well and with Russian accent as well You are right about the language, but they have russian-made weapons AND russian equipment (choppers, vehicles, etc...) too much organization and resources to be only a "pro-russian militias". It has been an invasion with a referendum only for cosmetic purposes (a referendum without a period of disscusion and two sides who are defending their option).
It is called military advisers, used by everyone. It is a way to make it like you are not actually fighting a war even though you actually are. This and other tricks are the reason why international law is mostly a feel-good framework with few beneficial practical applications, but mostly dependent on voluntary enforcement by the parties in question.
All promises, treaties, agreements in international relations are the same as inter-personal contracts in anarchy. They are as binding as much as both parties consider following the terms beneficial.
|
On March 20 2014 01:04 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 23:28 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 23:22 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 23:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 23:15 FatCat_13 wrote:On March 19 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On March 19 2014 23:00 radiatoren wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:
[quote]
Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. Well, it is kind of a fickle situation. As soon as Russia breached the territorial integrity of Ukraine, USA and UK would be forced to honour the agreement too, which would have resulted in war. UK and USA found it unnecessary to escalate the situation and therefore didn't hold up their end of the deal, if it is true that the agreement is valid. We end up in a situation where nobody honoured this agreement. Russia broke it first, that is correct, but USA and UK broke it too... As someone has pointed out in this thread before the Budapest Memorandum is not a security guarantee. All it says that these countries won't attack Ukraine not that they would protect it against aggression. The thing is that there was no formal "attack". Russia and Ukraine had a contract allowing russian troops up to 25k on the bases in Crimea. Russia originally had 14k and added 11k just within the contract. I highly doubt that contract allowed those troops to blockade roads into Crimea and blockade Ukrainian military bases inside Crimea. just look at the current situation from a russian perspective: crimea is no longer a part of the ukraine (this is a FACT right now, doesn't matter if you like it or not) the ukraine soldiers stationed in crimea have no business being there. the ukraine minister of defense (of the swoboda party) does not want to withdraw his soldiers and encourages them to use their weapons because he hopes when the situation escalates the west will interfere and help him out. and russia is the aggressor here? On March 19 2014 23:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:43 fleeze wrote:On March 19 2014 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 19 2014 22:29 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 19 2014 22:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On March 19 2014 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2014 22:15 Maenander wrote:
[quote]
No country who is in the NATO is on its own. It's just not true.
The Ukraine is an entirely different case and that should be made clear. The Ukraine is a failed state politically and economically, the Euromaidan protesters and the pro-Russian separatists are just two sides of the same coin. Both movements are unhappy about the political and economic situation, get easily seduced by nationalistic sentiments and are looking to outside forces for help.
It's likely that the Ukraine will be better off without a bunch of Crimean separatists adding to its multitude of problems. And it's time to move on beyond this silly confrontation between superpowers and face the real crisis, which is the desolate state of the Ukraine and its economy. the US, UK and Russia had a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovereign integrity. One of those Invaded it. The other 2 stood by and let it happen. You tell me that anyone in that region is feeling safe right now? Had a treaty? Apparently there is an info that treaty (at least in Russia) was not really approved (ratificated?) It wasn't approved by any parliaments (UK, US and Russia). But let's not argue about it now. Thing is that UK and US really just ignored it almost absolutely like always happen with lesser countries. It was an agreement, those aren't ratified in parliaments... Doesn't make them void, though. ah, must be the same as the agreement that the NATO won't expand past the iron curtain? "agreements" are held in high respect by both sides it seems. *sigh*, please educate yourself before you type. The foreign ministers of the US and Germany PROMISED to Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand. This was never signed as an agreement. It's still a broken promise, but not a part of international law. Breaking it merely (but rightly) damaged the diplomatic relations between the US, Germany and the Russian Federation. An agreement is a signed document which does is binding before international law. i don't see any difference here? broken promise against broken promise. doesn't matter at all if it's written down or not. That basically amounts to sticking fingers in your ears and shouting "NANANANANA". But should I ever buy a house from you, let's not sign a contract, I just promise to give you the money afterwards. Surely that's equally good in your eyes. Verbal contracts are as binding as written ones in many countries. The only difference is the difficulty of proving the contents of the contract.
You're talking about a verbal contract. What I said was a promise. But, honestly, the distinction in international law between an agreement and a treaty is not the same as a contract and promise anyway. I was only trying to give him an intuitive analogy, but he just proceeded to argue against that. I proclaim it a hopeless cause.
|
Just to be sure mcc, do you truly beleive that those are local paramilitary groups?
Or you really advocating that when some reporters managed to interview some russian soldiers stupid enough to say they are russian soldiers, that they are just local paramilitary groups who happen to own BMPs and helicopters and have military advisors from russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
