Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
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?
Russian-Ukrainian war
- Thread starter Tagaziel
- Start date
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
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.
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Perhaps I expressed myself wrong and it sound like I'm supporting Russia all the time. What I meant was that while what russia did was illegal, the people who denaunce it the most (in this particular case I was refering to David Cameron), do the same thing in other parts of the world, hence they have a double standard, it's ok when they do it but not when someone else does.
I do not support Russia, but I do blieve this whole thing is a fight between the US govt and the EU govt versus Russia, and that the average Ukrainian was caught in the middle, and not a unilateral offensive of Russia against the people of Ukraine, as others here argue it is, where the rightheus EU and US govenrments are only trying to protect Ukrainian people with only their well being at heart.
Tagz was trying to say that the referendum in Malvinas was legal and the one in Crimea was not, because they were totally different, when different or not they are still illegal. They both have their reasons behind them to support their arguments but both are illegal.
It's not a matter of oppinion but that of international law. The UN says that for self determination to occur they must not violate the territorial integrity of another nation (in both cases they do), and that the people who wants self determination must be native to the land. UN has already resolved that the people living at Puerto Argentino in Malvinas are not native. If they are native or not in Crimea (wich does not matter because they are not ellegible for self determination because of he first condition mentioned) is a matter of discussion.
Also Tagz made it look like the people there were ukainians forced to be russians within a month, this is not so, there is precedent of why they would want to return to Russia. That's what the history thing was all about.
I do not support Russia, but I do blieve this whole thing is a fight between the US govt and the EU govt versus Russia, and that the average Ukrainian was caught in the middle, and not a unilateral offensive of Russia against the people of Ukraine, as others here argue it is, where the rightheus EU and US govenrments are only trying to protect Ukrainian people with only their well being at heart.
Tagz was trying to say that the referendum in Malvinas was legal and the one in Crimea was not, because they were totally different, when different or not they are still illegal. They both have their reasons behind them to support their arguments but both are illegal.
It's not a matter of oppinion but that of international law. The UN says that for self determination to occur they must not violate the territorial integrity of another nation (in both cases they do), and that the people who wants self determination must be native to the land. UN has already resolved that the people living at Puerto Argentino in Malvinas are not native. If they are native or not in Crimea (wich does not matter because they are not ellegible for self determination because of he first condition mentioned) is a matter of discussion.
Also Tagz made it look like the people there were ukainians forced to be russians within a month, this is not so, there is precedent of why they would want to return to Russia. That's what the history thing was all about.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Have you actually read the page? Let me quote the relevant passage:
And, had you bothered to actually read the page, instead of donning a tin foil hat and stating that history is being rewritten, you'd notice that the pages I linked to are extensively sourced, with citations for pretty much every fact, including casualty figures. Instead of listing close to a thousand sources, I linked you to an overview with links to these sources.
If you reject reality, it's your problem, not mine.
Because it was made in the wake of a military invasion by Russia? The fact that Russia has continued to rent Sevastopol from the Ukrainian government doesn't give them the right to deploy their own troops to foreign soil, seize control of the territory, and then throw up a referendum to give the annexation the appearance of legitimacy. Neither Northern Ireland nor the Falklands were under military occupation by forces hostile to the legitimate government of the territory. Which is the government of Ukraine. The local authorities effectively committed treason against Ukraine and now the whole Crimea is suffering for it (funny how annexation by a foreign power breaks everything).
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. At the beginning of the century, Tatars made up one third of Crimea, with Russians being another third. The Soviet Union deported the entire Crimean Tatar population, killing most of it in the process. You're vindicating ethnic cleansing, nationalism, and revanchism by claiming that Russia has the right to annex whatever area they want, as long as it has a significant Russian population.
"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:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
United Nations charter, binding for all members of the United Nations. The problem is that
http://www.un.org/en/members/
The countries discussed here are members of the United Nations. I can go and look further, but 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.
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
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:
Last edited by a moderator:
USA is good at it, they got it down to an art. Russia is just beginning now. China don't have to, cus we all pay them anyway.
The purpose of offensive military might is to impose that power on to weaker regimes. Once again - to observe what happens is not the same as condoning or applauding it.
Military invasions are inevitable, and their explanations are always there - and they are never "cus they are evil", but almost always about balancing out power.
Russia is trying to gain a military might that NATO can actually be nervous about. This does not mean Russia Bad Nato Good, or Nato Bad Russia Good. This isn't about "good" or "bad" at all. I find strange that this sentiment is so pervasive in this discussion, who's being bad, is Russia being bad? Is Russia bad for being like USA, is USA bad for invading?
A school-mate stealing your lunch money is bad. Geopolitical events just happen, they are inevitable.
Are we talking about the same Falkland Islands? Because from what I can find, the Falklands were uninhabited at the time they were settled by European colonists and Argentinian colonisation between 1820 and 1833 amounted to about forty people. No real verification of military expulsion either, except by (of course) Argentina.
Sorry, there's precisely zero reason for me to consider Argentine's claim on the Falklands as legitimate. Crimea was settled for centuries, Falklands were not. Crimea has been a crucial element of history for centuries. Falklands were not. Crimea was subjected to Soviet ethnic cleansing in the 20th century, confirmed by multiple independent sources. The British cleansing is confirmed by... Uh, what again?
Read above.
And? The fact that Argentina considers the Falkland Islands theirs is completely irrelevant, as they never were a part of Argentina. I'm trying to find a source to verify whether the British Empire, but there's none. The Brits did recognize Argentinian independence, but did not state their recognition of Argentinian territory. Furthermore, British claims of sovereignty over the Islands predate the Argentinian. Can't really find a source verifying that the British took the islands by force either, by way of military invasion and occupation.
And yet no solution is in sight, as the UK explicitly rejects any negotiation. Gee, I wonder, maybe it has something to do with the fact that Argentina tried to invade, occupy, and annex the Falkland Islands, a territory that has for 150 years remained under British sovereignty and is inhabited exclusively by British citizens?
Your country destroyed any possibility of a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the Falklands dispute. But, of course, it's Britain's fault, right?
I don't hate Russia, I dislike what the current Russian government is doing. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
I admire your integrity, but 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.
I don't speak Spanish, unfortunately.
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
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".
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".
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
Hey, shut up.
Shut the fuck up for a second.
Okay, continue.
Shut the fuck up for a second.
Okay, continue.
Links, please. The list I see on Wikipedia only lists two Argentinian governors between 1829 and 1832. Likewise, there's no reference to a sizable Argentinian population on the islands when the British colonists established permanent settlements after taking the islands in 1833. Sorry, 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?
The problem is that the referendum on the Falklands wasn't made in a situation of military occupation by a hostile foreign power. But since you apparently don't think of the Falklanders as people, at least, not people deserving of a vote, you'll claim that nearly two centuries of continuous British sovereignty is military occupation and no real Malvinas inhabitant participated in it.
There are fundamental differences between the Falklands and Crimea - ones you continue to ignore.
Has Argentina ever proven its claim on the Falklands? You know, since it's allegedly part of their territory, when, exactly, did actual Argentine (not the Confederacy) formally control the Falkland Islands? The logic strikes me as dubious.
Not whole of Argentina, the military junta that didn't expect the British to retaliate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
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?
Last edited:
Do you have any neutral source, rather than Argentine's own governmental sites?
I also suspected that the argument "33 governors" will hinge on Spanish colonialism. Tell me, is colonialism good or bad? Because it sure as hell seems like a double standard: Colonialism is good when it supports our claim and bad when it supports the claim of the U.K..
Again, why is it relevant? The history of Chagos is completely different to the history of the Falkland Islands. If you want to make a comparison, make one where there are more common points than 1. they're both islands and 2. they're both things I don't like.
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
At this point you are just trying to discredit my arguments by... making them "look bad"? The comparison of Chagos with Malvinas was made even within the documentary and if with everything exposed so far you can't see it for yourself, then I can no longer help you. Again, if you want to go in denial, go ahead, I consider resolutions voted in the United Nation to be "neutral" enough, argentine arguments are enough to convince the UN decolonization cometee year after year, but not you, so believe whatever you want to believe.
I don't know if I'll have to explain every single bit of every argument to you or what, but I no longuer care. You are arguing phallacies like "because you were once a spanish colony the nation formed from the decolinized territories cannot claim them for themselves because if they do they support colonialism", that not only goes against how international law works but makes absolutely no sense.
I try to explain, yet every single thing I say your reply is an automatic deauthorization based on that what I say is not "neutral", or that I don't have a photo of myself with David Hewett himself as he raised the argentine flag on the islands in 1820.
I don't know if I'll have to explain every single bit of every argument to you or what, but I no longuer care. You are arguing phallacies like "because you were once a spanish colony the nation formed from the decolinized territories cannot claim them for themselves because if they do they support colonialism", that not only goes against how international law works but makes absolutely no sense.
I try to explain, yet every single thing I say your reply is an automatic deauthorization based on that what I say is not "neutral", or that I don't have a photo of myself with David Hewett himself as he raised the argentine flag on the islands in 1820.
Last edited:
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Just throwing my 2 cents into the convo, hope I don't upset anyone because I don't mean to.
The conflict sort of started when EU I guess wanted to get Ukraine to sign the "association and trade agreement" that Yanukovich was sort of interested in signing at first but at the behest of Russia turned it down. If this really is true then maybe Russia overstepped it's boundaries and should allow Ukraine to decide for itself. Then again it seem that Crimea is so pro-Russia that it joining Russia should be a given, I guess. Also there seems to be a lot of pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine so seems not everything is as simple as everyone in the West thinks.
Tagaziel says that West doesn't want to deal with oligarchs. I wonder if this is really true, so far the West has been really happy to buy Russia's non-renewable natural resources from the many oligarchs and deal with them in many different ways. The oligarchs are seen as 'liberators' of Russia and Putin is seen as the 'Stalin'- type. This is the way I see it. Roman Abramovich went and bought Chelsea the football club and is living like a pig in s*** in the west. Same with other oligarchs, doesn't look to me like the West 'hates' them.
Tagaziel also says about the amount of foreign aid that US and Europe give. I would like point out the difference though that in Europe aid is mostly given from tax money by the governments, in US they favour a more volunteer aid system. I prefer the European system. Also it's good to note that both US and Europe make a lot more money from the third world through the private corporations that operate there and make use of the local non-renewable resources such as "blood diamonds" etc. Much much more has been taken out of Africa and is taken out every year then the much touted foreign aid that the West gives them back. This is direct continuance of the colonial rule that European nations held in Africa for a long time and that they subsequently continued by dealing with dictators such as Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire etc. as Sander mentioned. Nations such as Belgium and UK have a very bloody history in Africa.
Things might be changing in the future though with China beginning to heavily invest in Africa. China has also sided with Russia in relation to the whole Ukraine question. Funny to see USA grovel in front of China.
BigBoss, what exactly do you know about the condition of the Russian military? Have you visited their barracks, viewed their material? If you're going by 'wikipedia', as some here seem to going, I'm not going to agree with you on that. But hey, you think they're weak, go test them, ok? Just don't expect other people to test Russia's strengh on your behalf.
Not going to get into the whole Falklands/Malvinas-debate except maybe to ask Tagaziel, what does he consider to be "neutral" sources in relation to that conflict? UK sources? Weren't they part of that conflict?
Also, Ukraine is still very poor, about as poor as it was when the Soviet Union collapsed, or even poorer relatively. So, the promise by West that things will turn into roses and marshmallows for everyone in eastern Europe once they get rid of socialism hasn't really materialised. Some nations like Czech and maybe Poland have kind of prospered but even them, not really all that much. I'm pretty sure they would welcome more investment money from the West that really hasn't materialised.
Also part 2, I'm reminded of the huge weapons cache thefts in Ukraine after the collapse of Soviet Union. Like, billions of dollars/euros worth of small arms etc. stolen and sold by western arms dealers. Some call it the biggest robbery of the 20th century. I wonder how many of these weapons ended up in the hands of organisations like Al Queda, Isis and countless other coflict zones in third world regions.
The conflict sort of started when EU I guess wanted to get Ukraine to sign the "association and trade agreement" that Yanukovich was sort of interested in signing at first but at the behest of Russia turned it down. If this really is true then maybe Russia overstepped it's boundaries and should allow Ukraine to decide for itself. Then again it seem that Crimea is so pro-Russia that it joining Russia should be a given, I guess. Also there seems to be a lot of pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine so seems not everything is as simple as everyone in the West thinks.
Tagaziel says that West doesn't want to deal with oligarchs. I wonder if this is really true, so far the West has been really happy to buy Russia's non-renewable natural resources from the many oligarchs and deal with them in many different ways. The oligarchs are seen as 'liberators' of Russia and Putin is seen as the 'Stalin'- type. This is the way I see it. Roman Abramovich went and bought Chelsea the football club and is living like a pig in s*** in the west. Same with other oligarchs, doesn't look to me like the West 'hates' them.
Tagaziel also says about the amount of foreign aid that US and Europe give. I would like point out the difference though that in Europe aid is mostly given from tax money by the governments, in US they favour a more volunteer aid system. I prefer the European system. Also it's good to note that both US and Europe make a lot more money from the third world through the private corporations that operate there and make use of the local non-renewable resources such as "blood diamonds" etc. Much much more has been taken out of Africa and is taken out every year then the much touted foreign aid that the West gives them back. This is direct continuance of the colonial rule that European nations held in Africa for a long time and that they subsequently continued by dealing with dictators such as Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire etc. as Sander mentioned. Nations such as Belgium and UK have a very bloody history in Africa.
Things might be changing in the future though with China beginning to heavily invest in Africa. China has also sided with Russia in relation to the whole Ukraine question. Funny to see USA grovel in front of China.
BigBoss, what exactly do you know about the condition of the Russian military? Have you visited their barracks, viewed their material? If you're going by 'wikipedia', as some here seem to going, I'm not going to agree with you on that. But hey, you think they're weak, go test them, ok? Just don't expect other people to test Russia's strengh on your behalf.
Not going to get into the whole Falklands/Malvinas-debate except maybe to ask Tagaziel, what does he consider to be "neutral" sources in relation to that conflict? UK sources? Weren't they part of that conflict?
Also, Ukraine is still very poor, about as poor as it was when the Soviet Union collapsed, or even poorer relatively. So, the promise by West that things will turn into roses and marshmallows for everyone in eastern Europe once they get rid of socialism hasn't really materialised. Some nations like Czech and maybe Poland have kind of prospered but even them, not really all that much. I'm pretty sure they would welcome more investment money from the West that really hasn't materialised.
Also part 2, I'm reminded of the huge weapons cache thefts in Ukraine after the collapse of Soviet Union. Like, billions of dollars/euros worth of small arms etc. stolen and sold by western arms dealers. Some call it the biggest robbery of the 20th century. I wonder how many of these weapons ended up in the hands of organisations like Al Queda, Isis and countless other coflict zones in third world regions.
Last edited:
welsh
Junkmaster
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
[url]http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/reports/hiding-in-plain-sight-putin-s-war-in-ukraine-and-boris-nemtsov-s-putin-war [/URL]
[url]http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/reports/hiding-in-plain-sight-putin-s-war-in-ukraine-and-boris-nemtsov-s-putin-war [/URL]
Last edited:
Dude. Com on. There is the next season of Game of Thrones runing right now. What is Ukraine again? That some kind of new house or villain in GoT?
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
House Slav. Cheeki Breeki iv Damke.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Link broken.
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
Well, looks like the deaths of any "Off duty" personnel are now classified as well.
[video]http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-classifies-military-casualties-peacetime-31357460[/video]
[video]http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-classifies-military-casualties-peacetime-31357460[/video]