• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine accuses Russia of Occupation calls for help from US/UK

Higgins86 said:
No because America didn't invade England they were invited and used England as a forward operating base for the invasion of Nazi Europe...Awful analogy
Click to expand...

Russia had the agreement of the legitimate government of the Ukraine. But that doesn't seem to matter to you.
 
Paleocon said:
Which law authorizes one branch of a government to conduct a coup d'etat against the others?
Click to expand...

When did any EU country authorise the government change in Ukraine?
 
Higgins86 said:
When did any EU country authorise the government change in Ukraine?
Click to expand...

They encouraged it. That doesn't show too much concern for law.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Taking control through coups is really similar to force in my book.
Click to expand...

You think that the EU instigated the political turmoil which lead to regime change?

Paleocon said:
So America was being tyrannical to England during WWII?
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't remember the American invasion of England.

The point is the that we're being flaming hypocrites.
Click to expand...

There's nothing hypocritical about fighting your enemies and defending your allies.
 
Man of Context said:
What exactly is your point here? Russia was certainly in no position to do anything about those invasions. Are you saying that we hurt Russia's feelings so they have a right to hurt ours too, that we should just accept? An odd way of looking at geopolitics, that.
Click to expand...
I don't see any reason why US's feelings should be hurt.

If Crimea at this case, choose for Russia (as already did) that is bad, and if they choose EU is good?!
Crimea called itself the Russian troops, they want to be with Russia, why should US stop it?! (since it is an EU issue as well)
 
Higgins86 said:
I don't think many countries have the stomach to fight the Russians and Putin knows it.
Click to expand...

Higgins, I suspect he may not have known it, but he knows it now. We must all pray that he does not act on this, and become in reality what we wanted to paint him out to be. What we offer up to the Universe or God each day, the Universe will conspire to give it back to us.
 
SayMyName said:
Higgins, I suspect he may not have known it, but he knows it now. Now, we must all pray that he does not act on this, and become in reality we wanted to paint him out to be. What we offer up to the Universe or God each day, the Universe will conspire to give it back to us.
Click to expand...

Talking to some friends who live in Kazakhstan today and they are generally worried about what this means for the future of not just that region but all former soviet states.
 
Man of Context said:
You think that the EU instigated the political turmoil which lead to regime change?



I guess I just don't remember the American invasion of England.



There's nothing hypocritical about fighting your enemies and defending your allies.
Click to expand...

No. I'm sure they had nothing to do with it. :lol:

We didn't. But the poster I was responding to apparently doesn't consider the agreement of a country's government to make an entry of military forces acceptable.

There is when you apply a gross double-standard.

Coin said:
I don't see any reason why US's feelings should be hurt.

If Crimea at this case, choose for Russia (as already did) that is bad, and if they choose EU is good?!
Crimea called itself the Russian troops, they want to be with Russia, why should US stop it?! (since it is an EU issue as well)
Click to expand...

Because we're America, and we're betterer than everyone else.
 
Coin said:
I don't see any reason why US's feelings should be hurt.

If Crimea at this case, choose for Russia (as already did) that is bad, and if they choose EU is good?!
Crimea called itself the Russian troops, they want to be with Russia, why should US stop it?! (since it is an EU issue as well)
Click to expand...

The Crimeans don't get to dictate Ukrainian foreign policy anymore than Texans get to dictate American foreign policy.
 
Paleocon said:
No. I'm sure they had nothing to do with it. :lol:
Click to expand...

Me too.

We didn't. But the poster I was responding to apparently doesn't consider the agreement of a country's government to make an entry of military forces acceptable.
Click to expand...

When did the Ukrainian government invite Russian forces into the country?
 
Man of Context said:
The Crimeans don't get to dictate Ukrainian foreign policy anymore than Texans get to dictate American foreign policy.
Click to expand...

But a bunch of armed rebels do?
 
Man of Context said:
You think that the EU instigated the political turmoil which lead to regime change.
Click to expand...

Why not? The US was behind the Orange Revolution that got rid of Yanukovich in 2004 because it aligned Ukraine with pro Western policies. I think the same powers had a hand in ridding him the second time around.
 
Paleocon said:
Because we're America, and we're betterer than everyone else.
Click to expand...
That speech sound more like Russian, or better Mother Russia.
The opposite of your sentence is what Putin has been trying to show to your president recent events.
 
Higgins86 said:
Talking to some friends who live in Kazakhstan today and they are generally worried about what this means for the future of not just that region but all former soviet states.
Click to expand...

People who lived under that system of a couple of decades ago have every reason to feel fear of its return. The hierarchy in Russia, however, do not want this. I wish more ex-CIA agents from that theatre would come out and make their voices heard on this matter, but they were long ago relegated to the closet once the War on Terror began. Russia does not want to occupy any of those former states. It drained them before, and led to the collapse of the Soviet system. But, they do want stable neighbors, and preferably ones that are amicable to their desires. Seems to be the case with a lot of powerful nations, who in the end, are just using the smaller states as pawns in a greater chess game that the rest of us don't even know is being played.
 
Man of Context said:
Ukraine's rightful government does. Keep in mind that it was the Ukrainian parliament that ousted Yanukovych.
Click to expand...

hahahaha now it's rightful. 2 months ago it wasn't??
 
Coin said:
hahahaha now it's rightful. 2 months ago it wasn't??
Click to expand...

Well, Ukrainian elections aren't known for being pure, but I wouldn't have called it illegitimate two months ago, no.

Why do you ask?
 
Coin said:
That speech sound more like Russian, or better Mother Russia.
The opposite of your sentence is what Putin has been trying to show to your president recent events.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic.

Man of Context said:
Ukraine's rightful government does. Keep in mind that it was the Ukrainian parliament that ousted Yanukovych.
Click to expand...

Illegally. Without the required approval of the Constitutional Court. Now they're also ousting Judges from the Constitutional Court. One branch of government does not have the right to bully the other two, and we should not be supporting this type of un-democratic behavior. The rightful government of the Ukraine is headed by their "ousted" President.
 
Man of Context said:
Well, Ukrainian elections aren't known for being pure, but I wouldn't have called it illegitimate two months ago, no.

Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

I think he's pointing out American hypocrisy.
 
Paleocon said:
Illegally. Without the required approval of the Constitutional Court. Now they're also ousting Judges from the Constitutional Court. One branch of government does not have the right to bully the other two, and we should not be supporting this type of un-democratic behavior. The rightful government of the Ukraine is headed by their "ousted" President.
Click to expand...

The bill that ousted the President was due for court review (among another important review).

And then he fled the country, seen by many in Ukraine as abandonment of his post. I don't think this is unreasonable. Most importantly, an unconstitutional act by a government doesn't mean that any more powerful neighbor should be allowed to invade the country, even at the behest of some of that countries citizens. That's simply nonsense.
 
Man of Context said:
The bill that ousted the President was due for court review (among another important review).

And then he fled the country, seen by many in Ukraine as abandonment of his post. I don't think this is unreasonable. Most importantly, an unconstitutional act by a government doesn't mean that any more powerful neighbor should be allowed to invade the country, even at the behest of some of that countries citizens. That's simply nonsense.
Click to expand...

Due for court review does not equal approved.

Which part of the Ukrainian Constitution allows a President's deposition if "many" see him as having abandoned his post? If the rightful President objects, I'll consider the Russian move unjust.
 
Man of Context said:
The bill that ousted the President was due for court review (among another important review).

And then he fled the country, seen by many in Ukraine as abandonment of his post. I don't think this is unreasonable. Most importantly, an unconstitutional act by a government doesn't mean that any more powerful neighbor should be allowed to invade the country, even at the behest of some of that countries citizens. That's simply nonsense.
Click to expand...

Crimea is so complicated that we may go around it as long as we can and we still can't get a result.
It is no sense to invade Ukraine, I agree.
But Crimea isn't Ukraine.
 
Paleocon said:
Due for court review does not equal approved.



Which part of the Ukrainian Constitution allows a President's deposition if "many" see him as having abandoned his post? If the rightful President objects, I'll consider the Russian move unjust.
Click to expand...

So only in the case that a single man objects to an invasion, do you consider that invasion unjust? The question here is whether Ukraine's government ought to be in charge of their foreign policy. Illegal ouster or not, the answer is a definite yes. Your claim that "armed rebels" are now running the country is simply false.

Coin said:
Crimea is so complicated that we may go around it as long as we can and we still can't get a result.
It is no sense to invade Ukraine, I agree.
But Crimea isn't Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Crimea very much is the Ukraine. Has been since the 50s.
 
The issue will be that Russia will claim they were asked to intervene by the Russians majority in the Crimea. The Russians can also claim that the leader that was deposed by the anti-Russian forces in Ukraine is still the leader in the eyes of the Russians. The whole crux will be how the regions of Ukraine in which the Russians are the majority will act towards Kiev and if Kiev moves against that Russian minority (over the whole of the Ukraine even though in some regions they are the majority).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom