jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "
The former President of election was democratically elected, very true, however before being overthrown he killed dozens of protestors and robbed the country of its wealth through a bottom to top corrupt government where the state of Ukraine existed entirely for his personal enrichment and the enrichment of his buddies, along with other powerful interests like industry leaders, etc. The state was not being run for the people it was being run to rob the people so this guy could stash money in foreign banks, perhaps up to 70 billion dollars stolen directly from the people.
Ukraine's new leaders begin search for missing billions | World news | theguardian.com
Being democratically elected is good, but its not the end all be all of it. You don't get a free pass to do whatever the hell you want once you're democratically elected.
Your welcome for educating you.
I don't think the vote should be honored given the circumstances. However, if Crimea truly wants to secede the people should have the right to self governance and join Russia.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
Crimea's only been Ukrainian since Khrushchev made it so. It's been part of Russia for hundreds of years and now, since the Tartars who were it's original people were sovieted most Crimeans are Russian.
I know it's a nasty way to do business and the results of the referendum were exaggerated by it being boycotted by so many people but if there were no troops present, if there was months to hash it all out before the vote, if everyone eligible voted, it still would have been a pro-Russian result.
He who knows the least obeys the best.
You're clever you know that, do you think before you post or do these gems just spring out of your mind?
The Ukrainian interim government has already scheduled a new election and did so very quickly. The Russians (a foreign power) blew the doors down of the Crimean Parliament with explosives, sent their troops into the building and put their guys in charge who got less than 4% of the vote in the last real election. No election there either, and none scheduled. What happened in Kiev was done by Ukrainians. What happened in Crimea was done by a foreign country, Russia.
I keep asking this question without getting an answer. At what point, does any of this give Russia the right to invade another sovereign nation and take control with their military that they have a signed treaty with that country that precludes such military aggression?
No NATO countries are in the Crimea, or Ukraine proper, yet Russian troops are in both.
Who is the aggressor, and how can we legitimately believe any results of any vote under those circumstances?