Ron Paul: Crimea Secedes. So What?...

[Redfish]

Gotta be a little more specific, Junior.

no I don't, your post does not merit a detailed response because it is based on bullshit.

= you have no idea



Got it.

try again, my little ignorant friend. What exactly is your question? how can I contribute to your education?

 

[Pogo]

no I don't, your post does not merit a detailed response because it is based on bullshit.

= you have no idea



Got it.

try again, my little ignorant friend. What exactly is your question? how can I contribute to your education?

Careful what you wish for -- this is a master debater at work -- these are all complete quotes:

Don't follow the news much, do ya?

No we don't.

He did not.

He didn't do that either.

We don't do that either.

No, you're not. You don't even know what that means, as we have previously established.

That has not happened.

We did not do that.

We did not. You are a propagandist for bloodthirsty socialist dictators, scumbag.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass, fool.

Your comfort and your partisan bitterness have nothing to do with it.

Oh really? Is that your opinion over there in Missouri? Think before you post.

If your point was that you are a fool with poor reading comprehension skills, you're welcome.

We don't know that.

That specious argument is never going to become legitimate no matter how many times you libertari-cowards repeat it.

= you have no idea
Got it.

Sure you wanna tangle with that kind of rhetorical acumen?

 

[Redfish]

= you have no idea



Got it.

try again, my little ignorant friend. What exactly is your question? how can I contribute to your education?

Careful what you wish for -- this is a master debater at work -- these are all complete quotes:

That specious argument is never going to become legitimate no matter how many times you libertari-cowards repeat it.

= you have no idea
Got it.

Sure you wanna tangle with that kind of rhetorical acumen?

scary, master bater might be a better description.

 

[Unkotare]

how can I contribute to your education?

You clearly can't contribute to anyone's; least of all your own.

 

[Unkotare]

Careful what you wish for -- this is a master debater at work --

You might want to put something on that rash.

 

[U2Edge]

Residents of Crimea voted over the weekend on whether they would remain an autonomous region of Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. In so doing, they joined a number of countries and regions — including recently Scotland, Catalonia and Venice — that are seeking to secede from what they view as unresponsive or oppressive governments.

These latter three are proceeding without much notice, while the overwhelming Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine has incensed U.S. and European Union officials, and has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War.

What's the big deal? Opponents of the Crimea vote like to point to the illegality of the referendum. But self-determination is a centerpiece of international law. Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the U.N. is to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

Critics point to the Russian "occupation" of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a "triumph of democracy"?

Perhaps the U.S. officials who supported the unconstitutional overthrow of Ukraine's government should refocus their energies on learning our own Constitution, which does not allow the U.S. government to overthrow governments overseas or send a billion dollars to bail out Ukraine and its international creditors.

Though the Obama administration has applied some minimal sanctions on selected Russian and Crimean individuals, neither the U.S. nor the EU can afford significant sanctions against Russia. Global trade provides too much economic benefit to both sides.

Indeed, international markets rallied on news that the sanctions would be thus far minimal. They understand that trade and economic engagement are the surest roads to peace and prosperity. Let's hope governments will follow their lead.

Ron Paul: Crimea secedes. So what?
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

The difference with Scotland, Catalonia and Venice is that any procedure to conduct a referendum on independence in Scotland, Catalonia and Venice is done with the consent of the rest of the country and the national government. That's not the case in Crimea. Crimean independence referendum is being conducted without the consent of the national government or the rest of Ukraine. It is being conducted at the point of a Russian gun, and outside independent international observers from the OSCE and the United Nations have been barred from entering the Crimea by Russian troops.

Let me remind you that 70% of the government budget in Crimea comes from tax dollars collected in the rest of Ukraine. 90% of Crimea's oil and natural gas comes from the rest of Ukraine. So the idea that Crimea can just stand up and walk away from the Ukraine is not justified under any of the present circumstances. Crimea has no more right to leave Ukraine than Mississippi has a right to leave the United States.

Russia has illegally invaded another country and seized territory and annexed it into Russia. Russia has no more right to sieze and annex Crimea from Ukraine than it does to sieze and annex Alaska from the United States. Yes, Crimea used to be apart of Russia, but so was Alaska at one time, and Alaska spent more time apart of Russia than the Crimea.

This is just crazy and what happens parallels exactly what Hitler did in Austria and Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Ethnic Russians were not in any danger at all. The only people who had been killed and tortured in the past weeks were innocent protestors in the streets of Kiev. The government led by Yukonivich had over 100 protesters murdered on the streets of Kiev in mid-February. That is why the people overthrew him. You can't KILL people for protesting. That is against the law and against human rights.

But because Putins man in Kiev was overthrown, Putin decided he was not going to take that lying down and invaded an annexed Ukraines Crimea region. This is Hitler at his best, and the question now is, who's next? What if Russia decides that ethnic Russians in Estonia or Latvia need "protection" and invade those countries? World War III. Those are NATO countries and an attack on Estonia is considered an attack on the United States and all other NATO countries.

So that is why people are deeply concerned by this. Russia has turned back towards its ruthless imperial and expansionist past and this is a serious threat to the entire planet!

Kosovo did not, and still does not have the consent of the Serbs, of which they were a part, and the US went in with their military and bombed Belgrade. This was 1999.

Why is Russia going into the Ukraine different? It is different, but the issues being spoken about here are not.

What about Venezuela, when the US helped out the coup against the democratically elected leader in 2002?

You can harp on about the Russians, but the US isn't much better.

I explained the difference above. The difference in Kosovo was that there was genocide, human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing on a mass scale involving millions of people. That's what made US and NATO intervention justified. In Crimea, Putins stooge lost an election in Kiev so Putin then goes and invades Crimea where there had been no violence against ANYONE at all. Understand?

 

[U2Edge]

The constitution certainly allows the government to defend the country and defending the country has involved overthrowing threatening dictators in the past like Hitler and Saddam.

And destroying the constitution and international law with Muslims in Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay.
And by locking Native Americans who have something to say the US govt doesn't like.
And trying to get rid of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela because he brought OPEC countries together and wanted to increase the price of oil.
And getting rid of Gaddafi because he was leader of an OPEC country that didn't like the US.
And getting rid of Saddam because he was leader of an OPEC country that didn't like the US.
And trying to get rid of the leaders of Iran because they are leaders of an OPEC country that didn't like the US.

But not getting rid of leaders of countries like Rwanda, Somalia, Ivory Coast, and many, many other countries that don't happen to be OPEC countries, or who, like Saudi Arabia and the worst Human Rights record in the world, support the US.

Hmm, they even allowed Pakistan to get a nuclear bomb.

Lovely job.

It is a lovely job, both SADDAM and Hitler invaded and annexed countries and threatened the planet. It was a necessity to remove both!

 

[Nutz]

The constitution certainly allows the government to defend the country and defending the country has involved overthrowing threatening dictators in the past like Hitler and Saddam.

And destroying the constitution and international law with Muslims in Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay.
And by locking Native Americans who have something to say the US govt doesn't like.
And trying to get rid of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela because he brought OPEC countries together and wanted to increase the price of oil.
And getting rid of Gaddafi because he was leader of an OPEC country that didn't like the US.
And getting rid of Saddam because he was leader of an OPEC country that didn't like the US.
And trying to get rid of the leaders of Iran because they are leaders of an OPEC country that didn't like the US.

But not getting rid of leaders of countries like Rwanda, Somalia, Ivory Coast, and many, many other countries that don't happen to be OPEC countries, or who, like Saudi Arabia and the worst Human Rights record in the world, support the US.

Hmm, they even allowed Pakistan to get a nuclear bomb.

Lovely job.

It is a lovely job, both SADDAM and Hitler invaded and annexed countries and threatened the planet. It was a necessity to remove both!

I wonder...if these people who deny appeasement and obvious aggression, would kill Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, or any other historical figure that is known for genocide if they had the opportunity to go back in time.

 

[tinydancer]

The difference with Scotland, Catalonia and Venice is that any procedure to conduct a referendum on independence in Scotland, Catalonia and Venice is done with the consent of the rest of the country and the national government. That's not the case in Crimea. Crimean independence referendum is being conducted without the consent of the national government or the rest of Ukraine. It is being conducted at the point of a Russian gun, and outside independent international observers from the OSCE and the United Nations have been barred from entering the Crimea by Russian troops.

Let me remind you that 70% of the government budget in Crimea comes from tax dollars collected in the rest of Ukraine. 90% of Crimea's oil and natural gas comes from the rest of Ukraine. So the idea that Crimea can just stand up and walk away from the Ukraine is not justified under any of the present circumstances. Crimea has no more right to leave Ukraine than Mississippi has a right to leave the United States.

Russia has illegally invaded another country and seized territory and annexed it into Russia. Russia has no more right to sieze and annex Crimea from Ukraine than it does to sieze and annex Alaska from the United States. Yes, Crimea used to be apart of Russia, but so was Alaska at one time, and Alaska spent more time apart of Russia than the Crimea.

This is just crazy and what happens parallels exactly what Hitler did in Austria and Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Ethnic Russians were not in any danger at all. The only people who had been killed and tortured in the past weeks were innocent protestors in the streets of Kiev. The government led by Yukonivich had over 100 protesters murdered on the streets of Kiev in mid-February. That is why the people overthrew him. You can't KILL people for protesting. That is against the law and against human rights.

But because Putins man in Kiev was overthrown, Putin decided he was not going to take that lying down and invaded an annexed Ukraines Crimea region. This is Hitler at his best, and the question now is, who's next? What if Russia decides that ethnic Russians in Estonia or Latvia need "protection" and invade those countries? World War III. Those are NATO countries and an attack on Estonia is considered an attack on the United States and all other NATO countries.

So that is why people are deeply concerned by this. Russia has turned back towards its ruthless imperial and expansionist past and this is a serious threat to the entire planet!

Kosovo did not, and still does not have the consent of the Serbs, of which they were a part, and the US went in with their military and bombed Belgrade. This was 1999.

Why is Russia going into the Ukraine different? It is different, but the issues being spoken about here are not.

What about Venezuela, when the US helped out the coup against the democratically elected leader in 2002?

You can harp on about the Russians, but the US isn't much better.

I explained the difference above. The difference in Kosovo was that there was genocide, human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing on a mass scale involving millions of people. That's what made US and NATO intervention justified. In Crimea, Putins stooge lost an election in Kiev so Putin then goes and invades Crimea where there had been no violence against ANYONE at all. Understand?

Putin's stooge. Bullshit. The President was duly elected and there were European observers in 2010 who praised the fairness of the election. You have your facts and dates completely screwed up. He was elected being pro Russian which means the electorate knew his positions.

His Presidency and his government were overthrown by the opposition parties.

There was no invasion of Crimea. A 1997 treaty between the Ukraine and Russia allows Russia up to 25,000 troops in Crimea. This treaty was extended to 2042.

Crimea was Russian until Khruschev gave the territory to the Ukraine in the mid 50's. It remains 60% ethnic Russian. Their vote to rejoin Russia was a no brainer.

They considered the coup in Kiev illegal. They considered the government in Kiev to be illegal.

And most of all they feared the government in Kiev who are anti Russian to the max and who intended to strip Crimea of its autonomy.

 

[Redfish]

That specious argument is never going to become legitimate no matter how many times you libertari-cowards repeat it.

then answer the question: what harm can come to the USA as a result of crimea voting to rejoin russia?

"So what if Hitler marches into Paris. Not our problem."




You really are one of the most dimwitted posters here, and that is saying something.

Has Putin theatened Paris? Did I miss that on the news? Your analogy sucks and so do you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Putin's stooge. Bullshit. The President was duly elected and there were European observers in 2010 who praised the fairness of the election. You have your facts and dates completely screwed up. He was elected being pro Russian which means the electorate knew his positions.

His Presidency and his government were overthrown by the opposition parties.

There was no invasion of Crimea. A 1997 treaty between the Ukraine and Russia allows Russia up to 25,000 troops in Crimea. This treaty was extended to 2042.

Crimea was Russian until Khruschev gave the territory to the Ukraine in the mid 50's. It remains 60% ethnic Russian. Their vote to rejoin Russia was a no brainer.

They considered the coup in Kiev illegal. They considered the government in Kiev to be illegal.

And most of all they feared the government in Kiev who are anti Russian to the max and who intended to strip Crimea of its autonomy.

No invasion, but the troops were allowed in ONE PART of the Crimea, not in the parts they are currently in.

The treaty for the BASE was extended, the whole Crimea isn't the base.

Yes, it used to be Russian, is that the point?

It would seem that Russia had a lot more to do with the whole affair and took advantage of a situation to then place a vote. Why did it have to be under such circumstances? Also, why have places like Chechnya in Russia not been allowed such a vote?

There is that hypocrisy there.

However there is also hypocrisy in that the US allowed the separation of Kosovo.

The world needs a new way of looking at who controls what. The problem is, those with power simply aren't going to allow parts to disappear, while they do what they like to take what they want.
It happened in the 1930s, it's happening now.

 

[Ame®icano]

then answer the question: what harm can come to the USA as a result of crimea voting to rejoin russia?

"So what if Hitler marches into Paris. Not our problem."




You really are one of the most dimwitted posters here, and that is saying something.

Has Putin theatened Paris? Did I miss that on the news? Your analogy sucks and so do you.

Yet, has Paris voted to secede from France and join Germany?

 

[Unkotare]

then answer the question: what harm can come to the USA as a result of crimea voting to rejoin russia?

"So what if Hitler marches into Paris. Not our problem."




You really are one of the most dimwitted posters here, and that is saying something.

Has Putin theatened Paris? Did I miss that on the news?

No, Hitler's just in Poland. No problem whatsoever, Neville.

 

[Unkotare]

You know, Alaska used to be part of Russia too. obama better hope putin doesn't get a hankering for some fresh salmon and crabs legs.

 

[Unkotare]

Dominoes anyone?

~~~

New Ukraine province in play as ethnic Russians push new secession referendum | Fox News

 

[Unkotare]

Eh, but what could happen? Some singing contest is on TV so, you know...

 

[1776]

Kooks on the right and left believe Russia can invade their neighbors if they can start protests with Russians living in those countries.

Hitler did the same thing back in 1938-39.....

 

[Redfish]

Kooks on the right and left believe Russia can invade their neighbors if they can start protests with Russians living in those countries.

Hitler did the same thing back in 1938-39.....

so did the USA in the 1700s and 1800s. we slaughtered the indians and drove them off of their land.

Russia did not invade crimea. the people of the region voted overwhelmingly to rejoin russia.

we also declared our independence from england and became a new nation. should the other nations of the world intervened and tried to stop us?

 

[Redfish]

"So what if Hitler marches into Paris. Not our problem."




You really are one of the most dimwitted posters here, and that is saying something.

Has Putin theatened Paris? Did I miss that on the news? Your analogy sucks and so do you.

Yet, has Paris voted to secede from France and join Germany?

not likely, but what if they did? how would that harm us? what if the frogs decided to merge with germany and make a new nation? what if scotland secedes from the UK? will we go to war over either of those?

 

[Redfish]

Dominoes anyone?

~~~

New Ukraine province in play as ethnic Russians push new secession referendum | Fox News

so what? what if the old USSR is brought back? Would we lob nukes onto Moscow?

it amazes me how so many of you libs want us in another no-win war.