• 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!

Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

+
I am serious.. either you remove all dictators world wide or you accept that each country has the right to self determination and yes that includes keeping a brutal dictator in power. Either you actively start going after every single dictator or politician that wants/acts like one, or you let countries do what they want within their own borders. Now which is it?

False dichotomy.
 
The SNC has always and does declare intentions of democracy in Syria. I don't know who has told you otherwise. Go to their website, ask any Western government. Check the wiki.



You continue to ignore the SNC.

A description on a website falls far short of an actual agreed declaration or manifesto that would be in place to guide a post-Assad government. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing on the website to indicate peaceful intentions toward key U.S. allies, not even in the generic diplomatic language of advocating regional peace and security. In fact, quite the contrary. SNC Political Committee member Fayez Sarah declared, " It is a shame that Hezbollah consider their main battle is in Yabrood and not in Tel Aviv."

Syrian National Coalition Of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces - Search results for: israel

There is no way I, for one, can support an entity that views one of the United States' key allies as a target for battle. That stance makes the SNC incompatible with American interests and unworthy of American support.
 
Hardly. What I do trust is the facts we know.

1) Crimea was handed over to the Ukraine in the 1950s. Before that it was Russian. Hell the people of Genoa have a better claim to Crimea than Ukraine (it was their colony for hundreds of years)
So? Crimea is part of Ukraine now. By your logic since the Danish government surrendered Denmark to the Germans in WW2 then the Germans have a right to it. Thats how stupid your logic is.

2) The population of Crimea is mostly Russian, speaks Russian and associates it self with Russia.
Crimea is part of Ukraine. What part of that do you not understand?

4) The new Ukrainian government claims a lot of things, but there is no evidence to back these claims up. And in some cases there is actually the opposite... as with this supposed threat from the Russian government to surrender.
Do you watch the news? Russian troops have surrounded Ukrainian military bases and taken over government buildings.

5) The Ukrainians have tried many times go back on their deal with Russia on the Black Sea Fleet. Why is that?
Whatever the Ukrainians do is their business, Sevastopol was leased to the Russians, they dont own it.

Again how can you violate national sovereignty of a country in an specific area only, where you are the one that has always been in full control.. either directly or indirectly through local government that sympathises with you?
You seem to have a hard time understanding that Crimea is part of Ukrainian territory, do you believe Ukraine is a separate country or not?

Look at this way.. if say Texas was ordered by the Federal government to cede powers to Washington.. dont you think they would rebel also?
That has got to be the dumbest analogy ever. TX is part of the US and has got very good Congressional representation in the Fed government, I must question your IQ as to the reason why you even brought this up.
 
And it fell apart for you because you dont seem to know history. The Crimea has always been a battle ground, but over the last 200 or so years it has been for the most part the Russians that controlled it. Now in the 1950s under the Soviet Union, the area was moved over to the Ukraine for some insane reason, despite the fact that it had no cultural or linguistic links to the Ukraine. The area remained mostly Russian despite this move.
Again, it doesnt matter what its past is or what its ethnic makeup is. Crimea is an autonomous region that is part of Ukraine not Russia, you seem to have a hard time understanding that.

PeteEU said:
But they have not taken over the territory.. the Russians do NOT control the Crimea. They have taken some strategic points yes, but it is the Crimean's themselves that control most of the territory. That they are allied with the Russians is also just a fact, and can lead to the confusion that the Russians have taken over everything... the locals after all speak Russian.
The troops surrounding the few Ukrainian units are Russian and the Russians admit that.

Russia: Troops In Ukraine <em>Defending</em> Russians

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday justified the use of Russian troops streaming into neighboring Ukraine's Crimea region as a necessary protection for his country's citizens living there.

The use of Russian troops is necessary "until the normalization of the political situation" in Ukraine, Lavrov said at an opening of a month-long session of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

"This is a question of defending our citizens and compatriots, ensuring human rights, especially the right to life," Lavrov said.

119wmmx.jpg

See the difference in uniforms? Are you telling me that the better equipped soldiers in the foreground are Crimean Russians who just happen to have body armor, combat helmets and assault rifles that they bought off a store? Your lies are so silly its funny.

PeteEU said:
Well ...... there has been rhetoric going on about invading Mexico, laying land minds and what not.. hardly the best of relations between parts of your population and the Spanish speaking population.
Tell me when that actually happens in real life rather than your own deluded fantasies.
 
Bush paid lip service to helping the people of Iraq. If you honestly think that really entered into the decision to invade, I got a bridge with your name all over it pal. A fake WMD program that was sold to the American people as a very real and very threatening WMD program. Smoking gun, mushroom cloud, that line of lies."Hate-based." More like "reality-based." Do you think the people of Iraq are better off now than they were under Saddam? The hundreds of people a month getting blown to smithereens by suicide bombers might disagree. Containment and sanctions against Saddam were working.

Why not do some research before you post?
 
LOL more excuses. I understand fully what sovereign is, and that includes the right to have a dictator.
That has got to be the best line of 2014 so far! There should be a place to keep crazy posts like this for a year-end review.
 
The Russians are also ignoring the Geneva Conventions, though that may seem a minor point at this time.

Not at all, friend. Some things are worth fighting for- but they involve you admitting it.

Let us not engage in europhile politics in such matters. For they think they set the standard.

I will never count on brits, but I will value their response.

On a separate, west la note I will say...CALL YHA MUTHAAA!

I intend no political leverage.
 
The Russians are also ignoring the Geneva Conventions, though that may seem a minor point at this time.



GW Bush (the first torturor) burned that document (Geneva Convention). You know, lie, invade, pillage, pocket big profit, torture, kill, mayhem, chaos, and keep sayin' yo' hepin' the po' Iraqis. Is Putin using GW Bush's (the First Liar) playbook. Don't think so. No citizens have died in the Crimea. Putin didn't even claim the Crimeans have WMD. Whatsamatter that Putin, can't he copy the first moron, GW Bush, at these tricky International energy junctions?
 
GW Bush (the first torturor) burned that document (Geneva Convention). You know, lie, invade, pillage, pocket big profit, torture, kill, mayhem, chaos, and keep sayin' yo' hepin' the po' Iraqis. Is Putin using GW Bush's (the First Liar) playbook. Don't think so. No citizens have died in the Crimea. Putin didn't even claim the Crimeans have WMD. Whatsamatter that Putin, can't he copy the first moron, GW Bush, at these tricky International energy junctions?

Wow! It's still all about George Bush!

Can't you or Monte ever supply links to support your wild accusations and assumptions rather than using this as a forum to release pent up emotions acquired from some other troubling source?
 
Wow! It's still all about George Bush!

Can't you or Monte ever supply links to support your wild accusations and assumptions rather than using this as a forum to release pent up emotions acquired from some other troubling source?

They of course can not.
 
Pretty lame to talk about violations of international law after the Iraq and WMD debacle. Amazing.
 
Wikipedia, US Conservative. Are you serious? You and I can go on and add to that.

Look and see what Carl Rove himself, the President Bush's closest friend and advisor had to say recently. He said there were no WMDs, and that he regrets ever having recommended that we go to war.

He doesn't get back any credibility for that though. There's still a couple hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians, 4,500 US, and a wasted trillion. But it does make your point!
 
Wikipedia, US Conservative. Are you serious? You and I can go on and add to that.

Look and see what Carl Rove himself, the President Bush's closest friend and advisor had to say recently. He said there were no WMDs, and that he regrets ever having recommended that we go to war.

Wikipedia is generally correct.
 
'incredible act of aggression' would be if Russian troops goes beyond Crimea. So far, I do not see any incredible act of aggression.
Consider the fact that Crimea has its own government and they asked themselves for Russian troops to protect them.

Well, Ukraine does not exist any more, the legal elected Ukrainian government was driven out by terrorists.

It is idiotic to talk about "Ukraine" any more, the old state does not exist, because it elected government does not exist any more.

If somebody believes that non-elected terrorists represent the will of the population of what once was Ukraine, then he is a fool.


The new states that will be born on the territory of the former Ukraine will have their own governments, and we can be sure that the Crimea and what was once East Ukraine and what was once the West Ukraine will never be a single country again.

We have to get used to it, artificially created countries, like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, are not viable.
 
Wikipedia is generally correct.

It is generally informative. It is best just to go to the horses' mouth when they will talk. Why don't we just drop this one, however, because it doesn't really help with the debate at hand.
 
Wikipedia, US Conservative. Are you serious? You and I can go on and add to that.

Look and see what Carl Rove himself, the President Bush's closest friend and advisor had to say recently. He said there were no WMDs, and that he regrets ever having recommended that we go to war.

It happens quite often that someone will wish he had done something else even though it was the right thing to do given the circumstances and information at the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom