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

[TakeAStepBack]

I mean, what is really being fought over here? Is it ideas, is it hegemony, is it land? Is it subjects to the State. Crimea clearly has Russian roots and wants out of the Ukraine. It was put to a vote and they made a decision. I may not like their decision. Frankly, I'd prefer them to claim independence from any formal state and reject the notion entirely, but it's not up to me, and it clearly doesn't have an affect on the United States in any fashion beyond those individuals in governments wishes and fears.

What exactly is at stake here?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

chaos is the only answer.

Clearly it isn't. As we've been in state of chaos socially for centuries. Order forms from chaos, but the route to order doesn't have to be in the form of violence on violence, force on force, coercion on coercion. We choose that, and it ends up as chaos, yes. It's a cycle.

The first half of the 20th century was cyclical. (sarcasm)

Well, if you had a point, i missed it.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, they "voted" yes, in a referendum where the choices were "yes", "OK" or "fine with me".

Have you even read the ballot? The choices were to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.

Actually I have. Have you? Has Ron Paul? And if so does he not understand what everybody else does?

>> With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say.

The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer.

Any mark in one of the boxes is regarded as a "Da" vote. Ballot papers will be regarded as spoiled if a voter fills in both boxes or indeed does not fill in either.

Those who stay away will also not influence the outcome, since the result will simply be based on the option preferred by a majority of those voting. <<
-- Crimea Vote Doesn't Offer 'No' Option For Joining Russia

In other words they only needed one vote to win.

Apparently some on this side of the pond voted "Duh".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In other words they only needed one vote to win.

That's how any voting system works.

 

[Katzndogz]

Russians might have given up their claim, but they could not force the Russians to give up their Russian identity.

You know that the Sudentenland issue was resolved after WWII by Czechoslovokia removing all ethnic Germans. If you want a comparison the resolution is, you cannot take a person's ethnic identity against their will. In America we expect them to give it up voluntarily.

 

[Pogo]

In other words they only needed one vote to win.

That's how any voting system works.

Uh.... no it isn't. A real vote needs 50% plus one. Not one total person voting.

There is no possible 50% when there's no alternative.
North Korea recently did the same thing. Good company there.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A real vote.

Since when does The State give the option to opt out? Oh, never. Even the 'Free World' of the western nations do not offer such things. You'll recall we had a bunch of states looking to leave federal control here in the US. We also know the results of their assertion to sovereignty out of the "union".

 

[Machaut]

Yeah, they "voted" yes, in a referendum where the choices were "yes", "OK" or "fine with me".

Have you even read the ballot? The choices were to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.

Actually I have. Have you? Has Ron Paul? And if so does he not understand what everybody else does?

>> With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say.

The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer.

Any mark in one of the boxes is regarded as a "Da" vote. Ballot papers will be regarded as spoiled if a voter fills in both boxes or indeed does not fill in either.

Those who stay away will also not influence the outcome, since the result will simply be based on the option preferred by a majority of those voting. <<
-- Crimea Vote Doesn't Offer 'No' Option For Joining Russia

In other words they only needed one vote to win.

Apparently some on this side of the pond voted "Duh".

"Analysts say." How wonderful.

For the millionth time, the choices on the ballot were:
1. “Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a citizen of the Russian Federation?”’
2. “Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine?”
Huffington Post (tangentially, this is a terrible source as any substantive content it has is merely copied and pasted from other sites; please try to use a real news service) has it completely wrong. This is made clear when you read the options themselves. Option 2, the "no" vote, was to restore the old Constitution AND, AND, ANDANDAND, Crimea's status as part of Ukraine.

From your article: "The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine" This is exactly what that second option is. How can you possible read the ballot's actual words and believe that "restore Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine" somehow means "join Russia"?

 

[Nutz]

DO you think we can stop the violence, force and coercion with more violence, force and coercion? If we do it in the name of democracy, does it change the violence, force and coercion to something else?

You don't stand up to a bully by bending over; nor do you stand up to a bully by asking him to use a little lube while he is raping you. You stand up to a bully by saying NO and refusing to bend over. If you don't say no, then what is to stop the bully from raping or molesting someone else? The rule of law, which the bully already ignored? How about appealing to the bully's sense of justice and peace...oh, he already ignored that also!

And who said we needed to do anything in the name of democracy? How about we stand up to the bullies in the name of peace, to preserve world order?

 

[Pogo]

A real vote.

Since when does The State give the option to opt out? Oh, never. Even the 'Free World' of the western nations do not offer such things. You'll recall we had a bunch of states looking to leave federal control here in the US. We also know the results of their assertion to sovereignty out of the "union".

"Looking"?

You mean those online polls? The ones with no verifiable identities, scores of votes from outside the state and one-man-multiple-votes?

ref·er·en·dum [ref-uh-ren-duhm] Show IPA
noun, plural ref·er·en·dums, ref·er·en·da [ref-uh-ren-duh] Show IPA .
1. the principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection. Compare initiative ( def 4a ) .
2. a measure thus referred.
3. a vote on such a measure.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

DO you think we can stop the violence, force and coercion with more violence, force and coercion? If we do it in the name of democracy, does it change the violence, force and coercion to something else?

You don't stand up to a bully by bending over; nor do you stand up to a bully by asking him to use a little lube while he is raping you. You stand up to a bully by saying NO and refusing to bend over. If you don't say no, then what is to stop the bully from raping or molesting someone else? The rule of law, which the bully already ignored? How about appealing to the bully's sense of justice and peace...oh, he already ignored that also!

And who said we needed to do anything in the name of democracy? How about we stand up to the bullies in the name of peace, to preserve world order?

No one is bullying the US. No is bullying Crimea for that matter. If anything, the US and Russia are being the bullies here. Each side calling the other one the bully.

So in your view, we can bomb, maim and kill the world into peace? Or maybe we can sanction, treaty, memorandum our way there? So far, it's all a bunch of bullshit and historical observations has shown this idea to not only be wrong, but completely abjectly fucking wrong. Lets give it another try for insanity's sake though. Fuck it.

 

[Unkotare]

Ron Paul: Crimea secedes. So what?

The Germans are in Austria? So what? Now they are 'annexing' Poland? I don't know anyone in Poland - screw it, what could happen?

.........................................................................

I generally like you, Unkotare, but why jump on the "everyone I don't like is Hitler" bandwagon??

Not everyone. Just when the little mustache fits.

 

[bendog]

Russians might have given up their claim, but they could not force the Russians to give up their Russian identity.

You know that the Sudentenland issue was resolved after WWII by Czechoslovokia removing all ethnic Germans. If you want a comparison the resolution is, you cannot take a person's ethnic identity against their will. In America we expect them to give it up voluntarily.

well the point is/was (over take a step's head) is that post-WWII rules were changed via accords to the Geneva Conventions, and Russia signed on. Just because a population has "an identity" is not grounds to redraw borders. The same rules apply to the US and Mexico, or Native Americans, or Russians.

The exceptions are self defense and human rights abuses against a native population.

Putin cites to US hypcrisy in Iraq. There's no doubt W lied about self defense and Iraq, but to give him his due he was trying to build democracy, but unfortunately he listened to some Zionist neocolonialists who viewed intl law differently than his father, and perhaps every other sane person.

Still, if borders are not involate, we have returned to 1938. Though Putin is not Hitler. Mussolini perhaps.

 

[paulitician]

I think it's pretty funny the meddling Brits are gonna have their own Secession issues pretty soon. Scotland might just give them the boot. That's gonna be very interesting. Stay tuned.

 

[Nutz]

The biggest problem in comparing Russia to Hitler is that much of the Ukraine wants to go! The US imagines that by telling Crimea that Russia is acting like Hitler, it would make the Crimeans somehow change their minds and not want to be part of Russia. It isn't going to work.

It isn't about telling the Russians Putin is acting like Hitler. Its remembering history and how appeasement is a bad idea. The comparison is simply the route to showing leftist thinkers that appeasement, no matter who you give as an example, is bad news.

From what I have seen, the only people comparing Putin to Hitler are people like you. I am simple stating that appeasement is an idiotic and dangerous form of diplomacy. I use Hitler and the war mongering Germans as an example of the result of appeasement.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I think it's pretty funny the meddling Brits are gonna have their own Secession issues pretty soon. Scotland might just give them the boot. That's gonna be very interesting. Stay tuned.

That's not going to be allowed to happen.

 

[Pogo]

Have you even read the ballot? The choices were to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.

Actually I have. Have you? Has Ron Paul? And if so does he not understand what everybody else does?

>> With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say.

The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer.

Any mark in one of the boxes is regarded as a "Da" vote. Ballot papers will be regarded as spoiled if a voter fills in both boxes or indeed does not fill in either.

Those who stay away will also not influence the outcome, since the result will simply be based on the option preferred by a majority of those voting. <<
-- Crimea Vote Doesn't Offer 'No' Option For Joining Russia

In other words they only needed one vote to win.

Apparently some on this side of the pond voted "Duh".

"Analysts say." How wonderful.

For the millionth time, the choices on the ballot were:
1. &#8220;Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a citizen of the Russian Federation?&#8221;&#8217;
2. &#8220;Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea&#8217;s status as a part of Ukraine?&#8221;
Huffington Post (tangentially, this is a terrible source as any substantive content it has is merely copied and pasted from other sites; please try to use a real news service) has it completely wrong. This is made clear when you read the options themselves. Option 2, the "no" vote, was to restore the old Constitution AND, AND, ANDANDAND, Crimea's status as part of Ukraine.

From your article: "The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine" This is exactly what that second option is. How can you possible read the ballot's actual words and believe that "restore Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine" somehow means "join Russia"?

HuffPo's quoting Reuters. Read the byline. This was just a quick link to what I already knew from other sources.

NYTimes: "Retaining Crimea&#8217;s current status, which provides for more limited autonomy from the central government in Kiev, is not an option, which may help explain why the Crimean Tatars have refused to take part in the voting. " --- That would have been the 'no' vote.

Telegraph: "Option one was to reunify with Russia. Option two was to declare de facto independence from the rest of Ukraine. Option three &#8211; to remain as part of Ukraine as before &#8211; did not have a box."

CBC: &#8221;The ballot actually doesn't give an option to stay in Ukraine," said CBC's Susan Ormiston, reporting from Simferopol in central Crimea. "The second option is to vote for an autonomous Crimea ... so the result is almost decidedly clear that this part of Ukraine will vote to go for Russia today."

 

[Steinlight]

TruTube.TV - How do I convince you people that I?m serious?

 

[Steinlight]

The thing is, what are you liberal and neo-con dipshits gonna do about Putin and Russia. What is your plan?

 

[bendog]

The thing is, what are you liberal and neo-con dipshits gonna do about Putin and Russia. What is your plan?

I'm more a HW type conservative in for affairs, but I think the sanctions are the right way to go. Over the next couple of decades, the EU needs to get off Russia's carbon energy tit. Then Russia can decide whether it wants to remain an 19th century wannabe empire that can't feed itself or join the world.