So scroll back 99 nato attacked yugoslavia and invaded the country bombed schools hospitals bridges for 72 why no reason what so ever i am glad putin is standing up and saying piss off nato is an aggressor and trying to be world police there is more to this then what you see on cnn and bbc
Russian invades Ukraine..No threads on it?
- Thread starter nsxotic911
- Start date
- Status
Crimea was historically a part of Russia and the majority of the people living there are ethnic Russians. When Nikita Krushchev, a Soviet leader with Ukranian roots, gave Crimea as a present to the Ukraine in 1954, there was no referendum. The borders were shifted without asking the people what they wanted.
In 2014, there was a referendum and the people voted to rejoin Russia. As far as I can tell, that is legal under international law. The only thing that is iffy in Crimea is that under international law, when such a referendum is held, there must not be any foreign soldiers present lest they motivate the people how to vote. I guess history will decide whether the militias in Crimea were foreign (or foreign-backed?) soldiers and whether the referendum was technically illegal because of that. I don't think there is any doubt that the outcome of the referendum would have been the same with or without militias present.
If the majority of Crimeans voted freely to rejoin Russia and their wishes were carried out, I think that should be respected. If the Scots vote to secede from Great Britain, should they be allowed to? If Great Britain wants to leave the EU? When should a majority vote be respected and under what circumstances should farsighted and wise politicians be allowed to overrule the will of the people?
Putin's proclaimed reasoning of protecting ethnic Russians in Crimea was exactly the same reasoning Hitler used when annexing the German-speaking parts of Czechoslovakia so Putin's statements do cast a dark shadow, though.
In 2014, there was a referendum and the people voted to rejoin Russia. As far as I can tell, that is legal under international law. The only thing that is iffy in Crimea is that under international law, when such a referendum is held, there must not be any foreign soldiers present lest they motivate the people how to vote. I guess history will decide whether the militias in Crimea were foreign (or foreign-backed?) soldiers and whether the referendum was technically illegal because of that. I don't think there is any doubt that the outcome of the referendum would have been the same with or without militias present.
If the majority of Crimeans voted freely to rejoin Russia and their wishes were carried out, I think that should be respected. If the Scots vote to secede from Great Britain, should they be allowed to? If Great Britain wants to leave the EU? When should a majority vote be respected and under what circumstances should farsighted and wise politicians be allowed to overrule the will of the people?
Putin's proclaimed reasoning of protecting ethnic Russians in Crimea was exactly the same reasoning Hitler used when annexing the German-speaking parts of Czechoslovakia so Putin's statements do cast a dark shadow, though.
Putin loves his country. Obama... just a politician
That's what I was thinking of above.
And protecting Americans in Panama was the justification given for the 1989 invasion.
There are many differences between Panama 1989 and Crimea 2014,
but they have a few things in common.
The "protecting citizens" justifications given in both cases were beside the point.
News media in the invading countries (the USA and Russia, respectively)
supported the invasions and largely presented their respective governments' views of it,
and perhaps not coincidentally the public in both countries generally approved.
Both invasions were deplored internationally.
In both cases a majority of countries in the UN security council voted
to condemn the invasion but the invading countries had veto power.
The UN general assembly voted 75-20 to condemn the US invasion
of Panama as contrary to international law.
Wow,
I am really having a hard time believing what I am reading! The fact that so many people are willing to give Putin a pass on this makes me sick! One of the glaringly biggest differences in this situation compared to other NATO or US involvement is that we DID NOT invade a country with “anonymous “ troops then threaten the non-ethnic population and annex a country. Then hold an illegal vote. The vote/referendum is illegal because the Crimea is part of the country of Ukraine, for the vote to have any legal standing it would have to include the entire country.
Makija, lets not forget that the Serbians started the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and pursued a course of Ethnic Cleansing for years. The NATO campaign was launched to stop the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and for all intents and purposes it has. No NATO country has claimed ANY territory in that campaign!
While the Invasion of Panama can be debated, the US did have justification under the Torrijos–Carter Treaties to protect the canal which Noriega had pledged to revert to Panamanian control only. There were several occasions where American citizens and Military personnel were threated and one incident where a Marine was killed. I do not recall hearing anything of the sort in the Crimea. Once the operation to remove Noriega was complete US forces reverted back to Pre-invasion levels per the status of forces agreement.
While we might be seen as the World Police, let not forget that we are also the one country in this world that responds to any and all major events swiftly and without question. This country is the largest supplier of Aid during Disasters than anyone else in the world and we rarely get recognition for that!
“I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .”
Neville Chamberlain 1939
While this might not lead to further conflict, this sounds all too familiar.
I am really having a hard time believing what I am reading! The fact that so many people are willing to give Putin a pass on this makes me sick! One of the glaringly biggest differences in this situation compared to other NATO or US involvement is that we DID NOT invade a country with “anonymous “ troops then threaten the non-ethnic population and annex a country. Then hold an illegal vote. The vote/referendum is illegal because the Crimea is part of the country of Ukraine, for the vote to have any legal standing it would have to include the entire country.
Makija, lets not forget that the Serbians started the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and pursued a course of Ethnic Cleansing for years. The NATO campaign was launched to stop the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and for all intents and purposes it has. No NATO country has claimed ANY territory in that campaign!
While the Invasion of Panama can be debated, the US did have justification under the Torrijos–Carter Treaties to protect the canal which Noriega had pledged to revert to Panamanian control only. There were several occasions where American citizens and Military personnel were threated and one incident where a Marine was killed. I do not recall hearing anything of the sort in the Crimea. Once the operation to remove Noriega was complete US forces reverted back to Pre-invasion levels per the status of forces agreement.
While we might be seen as the World Police, let not forget that we are also the one country in this world that responds to any and all major events swiftly and without question. This country is the largest supplier of Aid during Disasters than anyone else in the world and we rarely get recognition for that!
“I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .”
Neville Chamberlain 1939
While this might not lead to further conflict, this sounds all too familiar.
Last edited:
With all due respect, that's so hard to read. One group out of Croats, Serbs, and Albanians is/was not the first (and only) to be evil to the other groups, and only one group was/is not responsible for anything semi-recent nor the hundreds of years of issues there. Some of those groups have definitely been better with their PR than others (google it) but to point to just one is too awful, over-simplified, and insulting to some of us who aren't smart enough to just keep hush and move on to GPW picture threads or girls & NSX's threads. Sorry for that thread interruption but it's a good reminder of how I wish politics would be kept out of a fun hobby site like Prime.
Yinzer,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I've got no problem with that. But what I don’t need is to google it. I was on the ground and have seen first-hand the atrocities that happened and no PR can deny what occurred and who committed what. That is why an International Court charged Serbian President Milosevic, Bosnia Serb Commander/Leader Karadzic and Bosnian Military leader Mladic with crimes against Humanity. It was stated (Proven) that over 80-90% of the War Crimes (genocide etc..) where committed by ethnic Serbs. So when I speak to what Majija claims as NATO aggression I come from a point that NATO used force to stop the War Crimes/Crimes Against Humanity that were being committed (factually proven) by ethnic Serbs. In this instance we can point to one group/majority and lay blame. That is why no other individuals of any other ethnic group where charged with War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia. So I do not think that this is overly-simplified. While I too would only like to talk about our wonderful cars, I have seen first-hand what keeping hush and moving on does.
Last edited:
I sat at an Oracle dinner the other night across from a guy from Ukraine, to my left was Sweden and diagonally from me was Poland. It was really interesting hearing their take on what's going on in the Ukraine. The Ukrainian guy .. while he felt Obama should have handled things differently from a political aspect, was perfectly fine with what's happening in the Ukraine as long as it stops where it is. I dunno.... it seems most of the Ukrainians I've spoken with have that same general disposition.
International consensus deplored the invasion of Panama.
That was affirmed not only by the UN General Assembly but
also by the Organization of American States. That doesn't
mean that consensus is always correct; I was only noting
a parallel between the invasions of Panama and Crimea.
In both cases, the world largely disapproved. (I also made
a point of saying there were differences as well.)
Hundreds of Panamanian civilians were killed by the invading force, and how many in Crimea?
To be clear: I am not "giving Putin a pass". I think the USA is
making the right points when it appeals to international norms
and notes the hazards in using military force to achieve goals.
I just think that our own double standards in that regard work against us.
Tom,
I understand the points you are making, but I too was stating the reasons for an invasion not the aftermath of the action. Regretfully civilians were killed;the situation in the Crimea is still young yet. But let's be clear about this,these are really two different actions. The Russian invasion of the Crimea is to annex the land from the Ukraine; the actions by the United States were not land grabs.
The last thing that people of my former profession want is military action; we have the most to lose.
I understand the points you are making, but I too was stating the reasons for an invasion not the aftermath of the action. Regretfully civilians were killed;the situation in the Crimea is still young yet. But let's be clear about this,these are really two different actions. The Russian invasion of the Crimea is to annex the land from the Ukraine; the actions by the United States were not land grabs.
The last thing that people of my former profession want is military action; we have the most to lose.
Last edited:
Texas unilaterally declared independence from Mexico, which didn't recognize Texas' sovereignty, and the majority of Texans then favored joining the USA, which annexed it. Sound familiar? I think that was Texas' God-given right even if Mexico considered it to be an illegal US land grab.
What is clearly wrong is annexing territories against the will of the local population. I seriously hope Putin doesn't start trying to do that.
Last edited:
I have four young, wonderful nephews who are 100% typical kids. From a distance, they look alike other than size. I've been around them often either after school, on the weekend, during a holiday evening, or out in the field (baseball game, driving range, band concert at school where one is on stage getting admiration from my sister and brother-in-law (the world police in their universe) while some of the younger ones sometimes misconstrue that as favoritism and are never sure too know how to react to that) and there's not been a single time where 30 minutes have gone by w/o one sneaking in a verbal or physical jab or push or shove or trip to one of the other three. They do it so often it's virtually *impossible* to tell who did what first. It's much easier to lay blame to who got caught most recently, and to give a pass to who deflected the best. When the world police enter the scene or are close enough to intervene, I can say with certainty that 90% of the time, the most recent aggressor (or at least the one that got caught by mom & dad) gets the blame while the one who looked to be attacked most recently goes virtually unpunished that time. This is even after I just saw the one who "got away with it" that time trip or kick the one who semi-understandably retaliated but got caught. Punishment occurs even more swiftly and assuredly with a little good PR - It's amazing how good the PR is of the younger underdog nephews who have masterfully learned the art of taking a dive at the right times. Are they both to blame? Usually. Does one get the majority of the deserved punishment while other sneaks by? Often. Do I speak up? Only if the initial kick or trip was a big one, otherwise it's all just noise and the norm and not worth singling out since it's just going to repeat later. Is it right that mom and dad often reprimand and punish just one? Not really, but the reality is that they usually don't have the time or patience or knowledge to fairly sort things out, and even if they tried to "fairly sort things," it'd be impossible to be fair to what's essentially two guilty parties. Right or wrong, the mom and dad world police mostly want to end the current issue and move on to other things. Even more amazing is how sometimes one of the nephews not involved in a particular skirmish will stand up for the one who took the dive because at the moment he may have something against the one who got caught. Or maybe the one who took the dive did something nice recently for him and they have an odd temporary alliance. Stuff stays cool for 15 minutes (or 50 years) and then the whole thing soon repeats, sometimes with increased fervor since the desire for payback from unfair treatment was festering. It's amazing too - when I'm embedded with just one or two of them, they're virtual angels and it's hard to understand how they can do any wrong. They're all so similar and great that it's dumbfounding how they all don't want to get along or learn how to, but it is what it is and instead they put more energy into looking out for #1 and how to make sure mom & dad see them get poked next time (after they just tripped one of their brothers 2 minutes ago).
If you were on the ground 70 years ago you would have seen one group ally with Hitler and commit unspeakable atrocities against Serbians and another group ally with the US, and there'd be no doubt whom you'd be chiding vs. defending on that era. It's a shame. We/they're all so alike yet this stuff happens in eastern europe/mideast/asia so much and may never end.
As far as our cars - quick threadjack - blackhorse06, once again, fantastic post about the NSX design studies. I would love to see that entire book, anyone know what book that came from? Please PM me or post in that thread and not this one. THX!
Last edited:
If you want to talk "recognizing sovereignty", don't forget that
many of the settlers who came to Texas and then wanted
independence had come to Mexican Texas illegally, i.e. in
violation of Mexican immigration law at the time.
Note also that this "majority of Texans" you speak of didn't count
the slaves that US settlers brought with them, who, if anyone had
asked them, might have preferred Mexican law that prohibited slavery.
Oh, I totally agree. And an interesting question is: if it was OK for Texas to secede from Mexico to join the US, why wasn't it OK for Texas to secede from the US a mere 15 years later to join the Confederacy?
All over the world, the guy with the biggest stick has historically defined "justice" according to his interests, even if it's full of double standards and hypocrisies.
Speaking of slavery, history lessons often gloss over that fact that both Houses of Congress passed a 13th Amendment allowing slavery, which President Lincoln sent to the States for ratification with the message that he has no problem with it (google the Corwin Amendment). A few years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed the southern slaves but did you notice that it didn't free the northern slaves toiling away in places like Kansas? Ah, where would we be without double standards.
If the people of Crimea wanted to join Russia, there are lots of precedents of such moves being sanctioned by the international community. And there are lots of precedents of such moves being prohibited.
All over the world, the guy with the biggest stick has historically defined "justice" according to his interests, even if it's full of double standards and hypocrisies.
Speaking of slavery, history lessons often gloss over that fact that both Houses of Congress passed a 13th Amendment allowing slavery, which President Lincoln sent to the States for ratification with the message that he has no problem with it (google the Corwin Amendment). A few years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed the southern slaves but did you notice that it didn't free the northern slaves toiling away in places like Kansas? Ah, where would we be without double standards.
If the people of Crimea wanted to join Russia, there are lots of precedents of such moves being sanctioned by the international community. And there are lots of precedents of such moves being prohibited.
gary
So Putin has officially admitted on Russian television that the militias in Crimea before and during the vote to secede from Ukraine and join Russia were not just Crimeans, nor were they just Crimeans with funding from Russia. They included Russian troops that had removed their markings so as not to be identified. Nice.
A few days ago the Kremlin also stated that Russia has lost influence over the separatists in eastern Ukraine. Um, "lost influence"? So the Kremlin admits they did influence them. And maybe some of the unmarked troops wearing face masks in eastern Ukraine were helping things along in Crimea earlier.
It's just unsavory when the government of one nation trains and arms militias and dispatches "military advisors" to overthrow the government of another nation. Unfortunately, it happens nauseatingly often.
A few days ago the Kremlin also stated that Russia has lost influence over the separatists in eastern Ukraine. Um, "lost influence"? So the Kremlin admits they did influence them. And maybe some of the unmarked troops wearing face masks in eastern Ukraine were helping things along in Crimea earlier.
It's just unsavory when the government of one nation trains and arms militias and dispatches "military advisors" to overthrow the government of another nation. Unfortunately, it happens nauseatingly often.
- Status
