• 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!

Crimea votes to join Russia[W:223]

If being occupied by a superior, larger, and more deadly militant force that you fought to get away from not too long ago isn't proof of this then I don't know what is.

You've pulled the wool over your own eyes and are ignoring the reality of what's really going on and acting the fool.

You're showing everyone that you know nothing of political and military history in the region of Ukraine and Crimea. The equivalent of asking someone to prove that the earth goes around the sun simply because you're ignoring everything given as proof.

Crimea didn't fight to get away from Russia. They were a gift to the Ukraine from Russia after the collapse of USSR, iirc. No war, none of what you're saying.
 
You're beyond help. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, and you have a full blown self inflicted case of it right now.

You are the one in denial about the fact that the people of Crimea want to be a part of Russia.

Sorry. Can't help you. You need to stop believing everything you see on TV.
 
Its an invasion because the government of Ukraine did not allow those Russian troops to be there, its an invasion because the Russian military has blockaded the Ukraine military in their bases and sea ports, its an invasion because the Russian military has seized control of the government and installed a puppet in a secret election in Parliament. Did you know that in the 90s Russia signed a treaty to never violate the sovereignty of the Ukraine, including in the Crimea?

What the **** else has to happen before you call it an invasion? Are you going to keep up with this absolutely ****ing stupid stance that forces you to ignore all these facts? Its not just the fact that they are there, its what they are doing while they are there.

The government of Ukraine was improperly ousted, iirc. And, iirc, there is no really viable government in Ukraine yet, is there? An elected government from top down, not just who was installed after the coup?

Wow, it's so strange that the coup against the democratically elected leader of Ukraine doesn't bother anyone, but this does. Mind-boggling.
 
Crimea didn't fight to get away from Russia. They were a gift to the Ukraine from Russia after the collapse of USSR, iirc. No war, none of what you're saying.

Exactly. I can't believe someone actually wants someone to believe that.
 
You are the one in denial about the fact that the people of Crimea want to be a part of Russia.

Sorry. Can't help you. You need to stop believing everything you see on TV.

At what point in your mind, 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?
 
IMO, even as the turnout hints at legitimacy, the actual conditions in which the referendum took place argue against it. First, there were no international observers. Second, Russian troops and pro-Russian paramilitary elements on the streets created a climate of possible duress.

Even under fair conditions, I suspect the majority would have voted for separation. First nearly 60% of the population is comprised of ethnic Russians. Second, the economy in Crimea is weak and joblessness high. That would have contributed to at least some share of the non-ethnic Russian population voting for change.

Nevertheless, given the Kosovo precedent, I suspect Russia will be unyielding with respect to Crimea. Given the balance of power, Russia has the capacity to enforce that outcome. Moreover, I doubt that a compromise in which a referendum would be permitted to take place under neutral conditions will be accepted by either Russia or the Ukraine now that this vote has been held.
 
good for them / bad for them; i just don't know or care.

Washington needs to find a good way to back the **** out of this and fix our own country. enough of this barfighting bull****. fix the ****ing roof.
 
That's because its not a legitimate election

Putin is very smart, he's a master in geopolitics. Maybe the elections were legit ? Why not just 55 % voting for returning to being part of Russia ?

Just wish Obama were just half as smart as Putin.
 
IMO, even as the turnout hints at legitimacy, the actual conditions in which the referendum took place argue against it. First, there were no international observers. Second, Russian troops and pro-Russian paramilitary elements on the streets created a climate of possible duress.

Even under fair conditions, I suspect the majority would have voted for separation. First nearly 60% of the population is comprised of ethnic Russians. Second, the economy in Crimea is weak and joblessness high. That would have contributed to at least some share of the non-ethnic Russian population voting for change.

Nevertheless, given the Kosovo precedent, I suspect Russia will be unyielding with respect to Crimea. Given the balance of power, Russia has the capacity to enforce that outcome. Moreover, I doubt that a compromise in which a referendum would be permitted to take place under neutral conditions will be accepted by either Russia or the Ukraine now that this vote has been held.
OSCE observers were invited by Russians.
But they didn't send anyone because they called it illegitimate days before.
 
At what point in your mind, 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?

We have done that, and then allowed for elections, how is this much different? We did it in Afghanistan and then again in Iraq, and both of those countries had to wait waaaaaaay longer than a month for a "free" election.
 
The government of Ukraine was improperly ousted, iirc. And, iirc, there is no really viable government in Ukraine yet, is there? An elected government from top down, not just who was installed after the coup?

Wow, it's so strange that the coup against the democratically elected leader of Ukraine doesn't bother anyone, but this does. Mind-boggling.

Mind boggling? Really? You fail to understand the difference? Are you ignorant? Do you just not care for facts?

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.
 
The government of Ukraine was improperly ousted, iirc. And, iirc, there is no really viable government in Ukraine yet, is there? An elected government from top down, not just who was installed after the coup?

Wow, it's so strange that the coup against the democratically elected leader of Ukraine doesn't bother anyone, but this does. Mind-boggling.
Yeah.
And if that leader would have choosen the agreement with EU and not Russia months ago, he would have been now the most democrat leader in Ukraine.
 
We have done that, and then allowed for elections, how is this much different? We did it in Afghanistan and then again in Iraq, and both of those countries had to wait waaaaaaay longer than a month for a "free" election.

Its different because we aren't annexing Iraq or Afghanistan and we did not install puppet governments once we arrived.

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE
 
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.
 
Russian invades the Crimea, occupies the Parliament building with its Soldiers, uses that Parliament building to issue a decree through a new Prime Minister of Ukraine, a man who's "Russian Unity" party was founded only in 2008 and only won THREE out of one hundred seats in 2010, a man who runs an organized crime syndicate in Crimea, to hold a referendum in 10 days time which will be established and run by the Russian military.

That is democracy? Its ****ing sickening what people find acceptable, especially considering all the pissing and moaning that goes on about how Obama is a "dictator" when an actual dictator comes up on the radar its met with a resounding apathy or quite approval.

This is not democracy, this is not an election, its a obvious move by Russia to give a thin veil of legitimacy to what is nothing more than a military conquest of another nation's territory.

Yeah, but...
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.
 
Its different because we aren't annexing Iraq or Afghanistan and we did not install puppet governments once we arrived.

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE

Ohh please.
Agree about the annexing part but regarding the installing governments, it make me laugh.
 
Ohh please.
Agree about the annexing part but regarding the installing governments, it make me laugh.

Ya that's why Iraq kicked us out and Karzai is going around saying what terrible affects the US presence in Afghanistan is having and that we should all get out, because we installed puppet governments that's why!

You're clever you know that, do you think before you post or do these gems just spring out of your mind?
 
OSCE observers were invited by Russians.
But they didn't send anyone because they called it illegitimate days before.

That's a fair point. I suspect that the OSCE did not want to be involved in an outcome in which the possibility existed for Crimea's people to break away from Ukraine. At the same time, Russia had shown no willingness to withdraw its troops to its bases and Ukraine had no willingness to permit a referendum on independence to take place.
 
The government of Ukraine was improperly ousted, iirc. And, iirc, there is no really viable government in Ukraine yet, is there? An elected government from top down, not just who was installed after the coup?

Wow, it's so strange that the coup against the democratically elected leader of Ukraine doesn't bother anyone, but this does. Mind-boggling.

The British government was improperly ousted from the American Colonies. Should we give them back? Should we not have fought to leave the British Empire? JK

Seriously though...

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?
 
Mind boggling? Really? You fail to understand the difference? Are you ignorant? Do you just not care for facts?

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.
Right because we haven't done the same damn things in our history, shooting protesters, robbing the middle class of their wealth, and welfare for "industry leaders," and corrupt bankers.

Please, if you're so able to judge others, perhaps those same judgements should focus on issues at home instead of abroad. And note that all you are commenting on here is Ukraine, Crimea did not partake in those activities.

So even if we take out the basic hypocrisy out of your comments, it doesn't change the facts that a democratically elected leader and his democratically elected legislators were ousted illegally.
 
In their bases or around their bases for security. Not occupying the Parliament after blowing down the doors, or on almost every street corner.

Also under treaty, the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee from Russia that Russia would not interfere militarily in Ukrainian internal affairs.

We have a treaty with Britain, Germany and Japan to have troops in those countries. Would you feel that we had invaded those countries if we took our troops out of bases, brought additional troops, armor and equipment into those countries, blew the doors down on their Parliament buildings, installed our guy as the head of their governments, blocked their navy by sinking derelict ships at the mouth of their navy bases and put our troops around every government building, took control of their press and TV outlets, arrested protestors against what we were doing and called for a vote that we set up to have only two possible answers that both stated that those countries were now part of the US? I don't think that Britain, Germany or Japan would think that it wasn't an invasion, nor would the UN.

The UN voted that this was an invasion and that the vote wouldn't count. The only two countries that didn't vote yes, were China who abstained, and Russia who Vetoed the resolution.

The entire world knows what this is. Why do we have some on this forum that cannot see what the rest of the world sees and knows to be the facts.

Just saying that if the Russian troops were already legally with in the Ukraine, it wasn't an invasion.

There's a Luftwaffe fighter squadron based in New Mexico. If they decided to bomb Santa Fe, New Mexico it wouldn't be an invasion since German fighter pilots have been based in the USA for decades now.

I have to say it's kind of strange seeing jet fighters flying over America with the black maltese cross on their fuselage and wings.
 
At what point in your mind, 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?

At what point will you provide evidence of this so called "invasion." There is no evidence. The only thing I have heard here is that there are Russian troops in Crimea. That is not evidence of an invasion. Like I said, there are US troops in Colombia.
 
The British government was improperly ousted from the American Colonies. Should we give them back? Should we not have fought to leave the British Empire? JK

Seriously though...

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?

But then why have a problem with Crimea in a completely non-violent way choosing their own futures? Would you be more in favor of Crimea joining Russia if they'd staged huge protests against Ukraine? How bizarre.
 
Right because we haven't done the same damn things in our history, shooting protesters, robbing the middle class of their wealth, and welfare for "industry leaders," and corrupt bankers.

Please, if you're so able to judge others, perhaps those same judgements should focus on issues at home instead of abroad. And note that all you are commenting on here is Ukraine, Crimea did not partake in those activities.

So even if we take the basic hypocrisy out of your comments, it doesn't change the facts that a democratically elected leader and his democratically elected legislators were ousted illegally.

Just because we've done some things that were wrong in the past doesn't give anyone the right to do them in the present!

And you don't understand the scale of the population, or rather you won't allow yourself to understand it. Its not corruption in the sense of companies getting fat checks from the government, its the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT existing to enrich a single person. Did any US President steal 70 billion dollars of tax dollars and put it into his own bank account? Ya the US has its problems but don't compare them to Ukraine's, and again even if they were similar THAT DOESN"T MEAN ANYTHING. If the US did wrong in the past that doesn't give other folks the right to do wrong today, how the **** does the US invading Iraq wrongly give Russia the right to invade the Ukraine?

Because democratically elected doesn't give you dictatorial powers or give you the right to rob your country
 
Back
Top Bottom