Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6ccdf/6ccdf56708f00ed3507da358b397bee6fb0c85fd" alt=""
I'm sorry, are talking to me or Tagz? Because I did said the referendum in Ukraine was illegal... I don't fully understand what you mean, care to elaborate?
Either I missunderstand you or you support what the Russians did the Ukraine/Crimea. If you support it, then what I said stands. Otherwise, I am sorrry.Crimea has been russian since the Crimean War of 1853, they had a naval base there that still exists today (wich is why there were russian troops already there, there have always been), it was given to Ukraine by Gorbachev when it was all the Soviet Union, and with it's disolution it ended up as part of Ukraine, but most of the population is of russian origin, speaks russian, has russian ancestors and even russian passports (hell there is people who live there who was alive when it was still part of russia before Gorbachev gave Crimea to Ukraine), the referendum was held by the local legitimate government of Crimea from before the coup and not an externally installed one, so explain to me, how the referendum held in Crimea is any less valid than the one in Malvinas.
Oh, so now we are citing wikipedia as a reliable source. Not only that, but if it appears there then it is "the" truth, no other arguments valid. Sorry, I trust my memmory much more, like I said, history is already being rewritten, because I know what I saw as it happened. For your info it's not even a reliable source: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news...tudents-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html And even wikipedia itself admits it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It usually uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or middlepage in this case).
Crimea has been russian since the Crimean War of 1853, they had a naval base there that still exists today (wich is why there were russian troops already there, there have always been), it was given to Ukraine by Gorbachev when it was all the Soviet Union, and with it's disolution it ended up as part of Ukraine, but most of the population is of russian origin, speaks russian, has russian ancestors and even russian passports (hell there is people who live there who was alive when it was still part of russia before Gorbachev gave Crimea to Ukraine), the referendum was held by the local legitimate government of Crimea from before the coup and not an externally installed one, so explain to me, how the referendum held in Crimea is any less valid than the one in Malvinas.
Oh, and cite me some real inernational laws and UN resolutions concerning self determination, I think we'll find that, if anything, Malvinas referendum is even less legal, even if they are both illegal. Unless you can cite the part of "because if it's only a month or 200 years" makes a difference. I will also remind you that Malvinas was retaken by Argentina and held for 2 month and 12 days and this was done before 150 years of uninterrupted and undisputed occupation by the British could be accomplished. Let's talk legally now, not about if you "think" it's right or not.
The argument "BUT THERE ARE MANY RUSSIANS THERE" is ignorance. The reason there are so many Russians there is because of the Soviet Union's organized ethic cleansing policy that destroyed the Crimean population there.
"Retaken"? You mean the invasion and occupasion of Falklands by the Argentinian junta in a hostile action not dissimilar to the Russian invasion of Crimea? War of aggression is condemned internationally.
As for the legal basis
I really have no interest in discussing this with you, since you think military invasions and annexation of foreign territories are fair game, because reasons.
well, but many of us already pointed out that the US is just as shit like Russia when it comes to that - interfering with the sovereignty of nations. I know this is simply politics, there is nothing we can do anyway, but from a logical perspective, just because the US is doing it doesnt mean its alright for Russia. Just saying. Though I am not really used with the Falklands, so I have absolutely zero knowledge how similar it is with Russia and the Crimea. But I would say, at least the initial situation is a bit different.
With this you are giving vaidity to the Argentine claim on the Malvinas, because the reason there are so many british there is because the invading british removed the local argentine population by military force.
Read above.
Since you cited the United Nations Charter, in regards to the granting of independence:
I will point you to paragraph number 6, wich reads "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." Wich stablishes limits for self determination, as it cannot disrupt the national unity and the territorial integrity of a nation.
Crimean referendum disrupts the national unity and the territorial integrity. The same goes for Malvinas, it was even recognized as part of Argentina by the british when they recognized Argentina as a nation and they never objected it, only later they took them by force. Malvinas are part of Argentina's territory in it's constitution and anyone born there has a right to argentine citizenship as if they would have been born in the continent, since they were born in Argentine territory. Argentina considers the Malvinas as a part of his nation currently occupied by an invasion force.
And here, in your so truthful wikipedia with an external source the United Nations recognizes "the existence of a sovereignty dispute between United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Also recognized that the case of the Falklands is framed in a colonial situation, which should be solved taking into consideration those expressed in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), where the goal of eliminating all forms of colonialism was established. The resolution invites the parties to find a peaceful solution to the problem bearing in mind the provisions of 1514 and taking into consideration the interests of the inhabitants of the islands." Here we must also make a point int the word "intrests", that is different of that of "wishes", this means that the UN has already ruled out a referendum solution because the inhabitant themselves cannot decide the territotial dispute, it must then be decided by the UK and Argentina governments, the inhabitants are birtish subjects and regarding disputes with other soveraign nations they must act trough their representatives (this is the british government) and not directly themselves or as a third party.
This resolution, ratified in 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25), also rules that the situation of the Malvinas is one of colonailism and must be resolved.
If you werent so bent on your hatred of Russia you would have relized by now that I am against what Russia is doing. So you tell me I don't read what you wirte, but you don't reciprocate much either. So please stop saying that I'm supporting Russia.
You do understand spanish, don't you Tagz? Here, take a look at this, the last appeal in the UN regarding the Malvinas issue, this time by the president herself, she expains it much better than I ever could as she herself is a lawyer:
you are supporting Russia by recognizing their feeble claim on Crimea and attempting to excuse their military invasion and takeover of the Crimean peninsula. I understand that's because otherwise, you might be forced to recognize that Argentine attempting the same with the Falklands was also illegitimate.
There were THRITHY THREE gobernors before the british forcefully took the islands! There were argentine population and even argentines who were born there before the british usurpation. There was even an UPRISING afer they took them by some of the population that managed to stay before it was suppressed by the british. There are historical DOCUMENTS from the period supporting this, that have been submitted to the UN for their coinsideration. There were even treaties that support the argentine claim. There are UN resolutions that recognize the Malvinas as a colonial situation and is being treated by the UN decolonization cometee, and that there is a valid dispute that must be settled by Argentina and the UK. And all you say is that you dismiss all those facts just like that because in your oppinion they have no validity. The UK doesnt negotiate because they have a ratio of 1 soldier for every two civilians on those islands and they can continue to occupy them by force, the whole islands is pratcally nothing but a huge UK military base, and they ignore all UN resolutions and dont give a shit about international law beause they have a permanent sit on the security council and they can just veto any resolution they want, just like Russia does with UN security council on regards to Crimea and you are telling me that they are different.
They both use force to achieve what they want, because the can. That's how it has always been, and make no mistake, still is. If they are so keen on defending self determination, why do they so blatantly supress it in other parts of the world, double standards all around.
You keep ignoring all I say, you got it all wrong, I DONT recognize their claim, for the same reasons I don't recognize the claim the british have on Malvinas, and both referendums, the Crimea one and the Malvinas one are invalid.
The only reason the UK bases its current claim solely on self determination, is because they can't disprove the Argentine claim and their own usurpation of the islands by force.
And the 1982 war, while now recognized as something negative, did had a casus belli, and wasn't just because the whole of Argentina woke up one day and said "hey, lets go to war against one of the most powerful world superpowers because, you know, fun".
I'm not going to take your word, especially not when it comes to the Falklands.
Yes, what the British and the U.S. did on Chagos was horrible. Your point?
Here knock yourself out. It does not have links but yes citations to existing documents, treaties, and United Nations resolutions, internatinal law and agreements, etc. You can search them on your own, all the data to find it is there. And I don't care if it's not valid to you, it is valid enough to the United Nations Decolonization Cometee who keeps urging the UK, year after year, to negotiate the decolonization of the islands with Argentina, so deny it all you want, reality wont change because you do.
Double standards. The Chagos islanders are still being denied their land to this day, even after the UK supreme court ruled it should be returned to them. At the same time David Cameron staged a propagandistic referendum (because it really has no legal frame to support it, this being reflected in the UN not changing their resolutions and continuing to urge the UK to comply with existing ones) in Malvinas supporting the self determination of 2000 people while denying another population of 2000 people their own. Why, it's because the population in Malvinas is white? Or because in one case it benefits them and in the other it does not?
So it seems the "where is the evidence of Russian involvement" has been resolved. Here is an interesting article from the Atlantic Council pointing out that Vlad Putin is kind of a prick. (Not that it will matter much) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/co...bWI7QyvinwYDH6