# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Doesnt Crimeas Ballot Question #2 incorporate within it the Status Quo to stay the same?

## charrob

Doesn’t Crimea’s Ballot Question #2 incorporate within it the “Status Quo” to stay the same?

I’m not truly understanding ballot question #2.  Different media sources seem to be translating it in different ways.  

----------------------------------
Here’s one source:

“Voters can choose to become part of Russia or retain more autonomy but stay in Ukraine - a vote for the status quo is not an option.”

http://www.news.com.au/world/crimea-...-1226855856394

----------------------------------
Here’s another source:

There were two choices to choose from on the ballot with voters able to choose only one of them.  The choices, in synthesis, reflected the following stances:

Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?
Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine? 

Media outlets reported different translations for each choice and labeled them as "questions" which has created some confusion and inconsistencies on the matter.

It is yet unclear which version of the 1992 constitution the second choice refers to.  The original 1992 constitution was adopted together with a declaration of independence, but parliament then ratified a second version one day later that stipulated that Crimea "was a part of Ukraine".  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014 

----------------------------------

So Ballot Choice #2 seems to equate to:

 Continue to be part of Ukraine with the ability to have more freedom and be more autonomous.  How is this different from having strong State’s rights in the U.S.?  Isn’t this similar to the U.S. when under the Articles of Confederation prior to the Constitution?
 Because greater freedom and autonomy is given, doesn’t that mean that the Crimean Parliament has the ability to choose to follow the path in Kiev?  In other words, doesn’t Ballot Choice #2 incorporate within it the possibility of the Status Quo?

----------


## gwax23

Yes, its to remain "with Ukraine though with some more autonomy" If it was Join Russia or Status quo Im sure it would have been 99% in favor instead of 97% or so...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The Ukraine, including the Crimea, rejected the 1992 Constitution in 1992.  I assume they had a reason for that.

----------


## charrob

> The Ukraine, including the Crimea, rejected the 1992 Constitution in 1992.  I assume they had a reason for that.



But what percentage of Crimeans in particular voted against the Constitution of 1992?  Is it possible that 93% of Crimeans could have voted .FOR. the Constitution of 1992 but still lost because they were a small portion of the total Ukraine population?

----------


## charrob

> Yes, its to remain "with Ukraine though with some more autonomy" If it was Join Russia or Status quo Im sure it would have been 99% in favor instead of 97% or so...


I agree.  Many however seem to use the meme that they didn't truly have a choice because the status quo was not an option.  However, it seems that Ballot Question #2 had within it the ability to have the status quo.

----------


## gwax23

> I agree.  Many however seem to use the meme that they didn't truly have a choice because the status quo was not an option.  However, it seems that Ballot Question #2 had within it the ability to have the status quo.


Yes they need to find excuses to support western propaganda.

----------


## charrob

> But what percentage of Crimeans in particular voted against the Constitution of 1992?  Is it possible that 93% of Crimeans could have voted .FOR. the Constitution of 1992 but still lost because they were a small portion of the total Ukraine population?


I think I just found the answer to my question on Lew Rockwell's site.  It would appear from his statements that Crimea *always* wanted to pass the 1992 Constitution:  it was the overall Ukrainian government that forcibly, and repeatedly, denied the Crimean's desire to have the 1992 Constitution implemented:

-----------------------

At present, Crimea is an autonomous republic and part of Ukraine:

“The constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea…is the basic law of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, a republic within southern Ukraine. The constitution establishes the republic’s status and authority within Ukraine. It grants Crimea the right to draft a budget and manage its own property.”

History:

January 20, 1991. Through a referendum, Crimea regained its status as an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. At this time, Ukraine had not declared its independence, which came on August 24, 1991. Hence, between January and August of 1991, Crimea was part of the Ukrainian SSR, which was a republic within the Soviet Union.

February 1992. The Crimean parliament transformed Crimea into “Republic of Crimea” and the Ukrainian government offered them more self-government.

*May 5, 1992. Crimean parliament declared Crimea independent, which was yet to be approved by a referendum to be held August 2, 1992. Parliament passed the first Crimean constitution the same day.*

May 6, 1992. Crimean parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine. 

*May 13, 1992. The Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) annulled Crimea’s independence declaration and gave its Crimean counterpart one week to do the same.
*
June 1992. Ukraine and Crimean parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of “Autonomous Republic”.



*May 1994. The Crimean parliament voted to restore the May 1992 Constitution.*

September 1994. President of Crimea Yuriy Meshkov and parliament decided to write a new Constitution.
*
March 17, 1995. The Verkhovna Rada (Supreme Council of Ukraine) abolished the May 1992 Constitution (and the post of President of Crimea).*

*June-September 1995. Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma governed Crimea under a direct presidential administration decree.*

October 1995. The Crimean parliament adopted a new Constitution which was not recognized by the national (Ukrainian) authorities until April 1996 when significant amendments where suggested.

October 21, 1998. A fifth draft law of the October 1995 constitution was ratified on 21 October 1998 at the second session of the Crimean Verkhovna Rada (parliament).

December 23, 1998. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine confirmed this constitution on 23 December 1998. (Article 135 of the Ukrainian Constitution provides that the Crimean Constitution must be approved by the Ukrainian parliament.)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...on-of-ukraine/

--------------------------------------

It's pretty clear the people of Crimea *never* wanted to be part of Ukraine.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Yes, these are good questions. Good research. When I started a thread about whether Ukraine should be independent, I could never find any information on what options the referendum would actually contain. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...pendent-nation)

As I suspected, the option of total independence was not on the table. Everyone wanted this to be a tug of war with only two options. Stay with Ukraine and join the EU, or join Russia. No other options were allowed by the powers that be on both sides.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yes they need to find excuses to support western propaganda.


What in the world is this if one is evil the other has to be good thing?  I thought we at RPF's didn't give into that lunacy.  Recognizing that Russia is wrong doesn't make the US and the EU right.  WT actual F?

----------


## silverhandorder

> What in the world is this if one is evil the other has to be good thing?  I thought we at RPF's didn't give into that lunacy.  Recognizing that Russia is wrong doesn't make the US and the EU right.  WT actual F?


I agree both are bad. But who is the aggressor here? I would say NATO. What we say will change nothing anyways. Let's at least be honest with our selves.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What in the world is this if one is evil the other has to be good thing?  I thought we at RPF's didn't give into that lunacy.  Recognizing that Russia is wrong doesn't make the US and the EU right.  WT actual F?


If Crimea wants to be part of Russia, and Russia wants Crimea to be part of Russia... what's the conflict?

----------


## charrob

> What in the world is this if one is evil the other has to be good thing?  I thought we at RPF's didn't give into that lunacy.  Recognizing that Russia is wrong doesn't make the US and the EU right.  WT actual F?


The element of force was coming from the west in the form of a violent coup.
The referendum allowed Crimeans to not join Russia.  I don't see an element of force here, just a democratic vote?

Yes Russian troops were there; had they not been there the Fascists would not have allowed the referendum to go forward.  Most deaths and violence so far have occurred at the hands of the Fascists.  Perhaps I've missed:  have there been any deaths at the hands of the Russian military so far?

The element of force from the Russian side seems minimal and the little bit that was done was in order to allow a democratic referendum to be voted on.

Unless i'm missing something, this is not an "evil versus lesser evil" situation.  The violent coup versus democratic referendum is an apples versus oranges situation-- they do not even seem to be in the same class.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

appalled.

If America did what Russia did, y'all would be marching on Congress.

But Russia?  No, they are freaking heroes.

I don't know you people.

:weep:

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> appalled.
> 
> If America did what Russia did, y'all would be marching on Congress.
> 
> But Russia?  No, they are freaking heroes.
> 
> I don't know you people.
> 
> :weep:


No, seriously.  If they both consent to being part of Russia, what's the problem?

Gee, I wonder if Putin knows that he's violating the US Constitution by mobilizing his military to Ukraine without a declaration of war.  

If that's how they want to do things, that's their problem, not ours.  So denouncing them for their internal policy is pretty moot.  Stick to the facts: They both want Crimea to be part of Russia.  Where's the conflict?

----------


## UWDude

> If Crimea wants to be part of Russia, and Russia wants Crimea to be part of Russia... what's the conflict?


Obama says the plebiscite is illegal, therefore it must be.  Obama says the coup was democratic, therefore it must have been.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Obama says the plebiscite is illegal, therefore it must be.  Obama says the coup was democratic, therefore it must have been.


Why do I keep getting these ambiguous and indirect responses?  What are you getting at?

----------


## Danke

Wouldn't the status quo be highest percentage being a non votes or majority over 50% not voting?

----------


## gwax23

> What in the world is this if one is evil the other has to be good thing?  I thought we at RPF's didn't give into that lunacy.  Recognizing that Russia is wrong doesn't make the US and the EU right.  WT actual F?


Your right. Russia isnt "Right" per se nor do I believe we should intervene but Crimea was part of Russia before the US was even a country. There are huge historical, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and economic ties. They have a right to secede and if they want to join Russia I support that. Putin is no angel, far from it, but in this instance he definitely in the right, at least far more so than the US.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Your right. Russia isnt "Right" per se nor do I believe we should intervene but Crimea was part of Russia before the US was even a country. There are huge historical, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and economic ties. They have a right to secede and if they want to join Russia I support that. Putin is no angel, far from it, but in this instance he definitely in the right, at least far more so than the US.


See, I _WANT_ to see Crimea independent and free. The actions of the US and the western nations are unquestionably wrong and evil.  The mere fact that Russia's actions are slightly "less evil" does not excuse what is happening.  That is no argument for US or western intervention AT ALL.  It is a plea to people of good conscience to stop justifying another evil.

We say the Russian activity is blowback for US activity in the region, and that is probably 100% truth.  In the same manner, 9/11 was blowback for US activities in the Middle East.  Understanding WHY something is happening does not justify the action.  The attack on 9/11 may be blowback for American activities, which explains WHY it happened, but it does not by any means _justify_ the attack.

In the same manner, the activity in the Crimea today may be blowback for US activity in the Ukraine.  That explains WHY it's happening but does not excuse bad behavior.  Excusing or justifying bad behavior is what the neocons were accusing us of regarding 9/11.  That was a lie, of course, but here in this event it is becoming apparent that there was some sense of this justification of evil all along.

That's not against you at all, you acknowledge that the Russian activity is wrong also, which is all I have ever asked.

Just because what we have done and continue to do with the Ukraine is dead wrong, does not by any means make what Russia is doing right.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, seriously.  If they both consent to being part of Russia, what's the problem?
> 
> Gee, I wonder if Putin knows that he's violating the US Constitution by mobilizing his military to Ukraine without a declaration of war.  
> 
> If that's how they want to do things, that's their problem, not ours.  So denouncing them for their internal policy is pretty moot.  Stick to the facts: They both want Crimea to be part of Russia.  Where's the conflict?


You must choose: become part of Russia or embrace a failed Constitution that was rejected the day it was proposed.  PICK ONE they are your only options.

This kind of manipulation is blatant and obvious when America does it, but completely invisible when anybody BUT America does it?  Really?

----------


## gwax23

> See, I _WANT_ to see Crimea independent and free. The actions of the US and the western nations are unquestionably wrong and evil.  The mere fact that Russia's actions are slightly "less evil" does not excuse what is happening.  That is no argument for US or western intervention AT ALL.  It is a plea to people of good conscience to stop justifying another evil.
> 
> We say the Russian activity is blowback for US activity in the region, and that is probably 100% truth.  In the same manner, 9/11 was blowback for US activities in the Middle East.  Understanding WHY something is happening does not justify the action.  The attack on 9/11 may be blowback for American activities, which explains WHY it happened, but it does not by any means _justify_ the attack.
> 
> In the same manner, the activity in the Crimea today may be blowback for US activity in the Ukraine.  That explains WHY it's happening but does not excuse bad behavior.  Excusing or justifying bad behavior is what the neocons were accusing us of regarding 9/11.  That was a lie, of course, but here in this event it is becoming apparent that there was some sense of this justification of evil all along.
> 
> That's not against you at all, you acknowledge that the Russian activity is wrong also, which is all I have ever asked. There too dependent on natural gas and water from either Ukraine or Russia. 
> 
> Just because what we have done and continue to do with the Ukraine is dead wrong, does not by any means make what Russia is doing right.


Yes independence would be the best option but I dont think they seriously considered it or would truly support it. 

I try not to use utilitarian arguments but in this case "less evil" does mean more autonomy and decentralization. 

Also I dont necessarily think this is blow black. This would of happened even if the US was run by Ron Paul. Many in Crimea felt the 1954 handover to Ukrainian jurisdiction was unconstitutional and illegal. Once the SU broke up it was only a matter of time before Crimea rejoined russia, US meddling or not.

----------


## klamath

> No, seriously.  If they both consent to being part of Russia, what's the problem?
> 
> Gee, I wonder if Putin knows that he's violating the US Constitution by mobilizing his military to Ukraine without a declaration of war.  
> 
> If that's how they want to do things, that's their problem, not ours.  So denouncing them for their internal policy is pretty moot.  Stick to the facts: They both want Crimea to be part of Russia.  Where's the conflict?


Quite possible they want to be part of Russia however Putin and his hired thug that forced the Crimean parliament to vote for separation at gun point made it damned sure there could be no other outcome.  Whenever you get a  vote that lopsided something is WRONG. 37% of the Crimea population is ethnically Ukrainian and tartar. The tartars hate  Russia because of the history of their population being forcibly deported to the gulag. Just them makes 12% sure as hell not 3%.
Yes it is a sham election that probably would have gone Putin's way with 60 or 70% of the vote without the troops but again Putin wanted to make damned sure it went *NO* other way. It isn't about what Crimea  wants it is about what Putin wants.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You must choose: become part of Russia or embrace a failed Constitution that was rejected the day it was proposed.  PICK ONE they are your only options.
> 
> This kind of manipulation is blatant and obvious when America does it, but completely invisible when anybody BUT America does it?  Really?


I honestly don't see what you're getting at.  I still don't see the conflict.  The Crimean people want to be part of Russia.  What's the problem?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Quite possible they want to be part of Russia however Putin and his hired thug that forced the Crimean parliament to vote for separation at gun point made it damned sure there could be no other outcome.  Whenever you get a  vote that lopsided something is WRONG. 37% of the Crimea population is ethnically Ukrainian and tartar. The tartars hate  Russia because of the history of their population being forcibly deported to the gulag. Just them makes 12% sure as hell not 3%.
> Yes it is a sham election that probably would have gone Putin's way with 60 or 70% of the vote without the troops but again Putin wanted to make damned sure it went *NO* other way. It isn't about what Crimea  wants it is about what Putin wants.


I see.  I must not be keeping up with this very well because I wasn't aware of Putin's motive for rigging this ceremonial election.  

On the other hand, Gunny seems to be talking about true independence, like the kind of independence the United States declared from GB.  I find it unlikely that the Crimean people really want that, and I don't see it as being plausible, honestly.  I could be wrong, but to me it just seems unlikely.

----------


## puppetmaster

Did Russia say they are being recognized as an independent state of Russia. Like our states are to the US?

----------


## pcosmar

> If Crimea wants to be part of Russia, and Russia wants Crimea to be part of Russia... what's the conflict?


AH,, the heart of the matter.

People who *want to cause trouble* for Russia,, and for Crimea are the ones who created this conflict.

Russia has (through Diplomacy) prevented the escalation of violence in Syria. and brokered a Deal with Iran on their Nuclear program.

That made some people very angry.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> AH,, the heart of the matter.
> 
> People who *want to cause trouble* for Russia,, and for Crimea are the ones who created this conflict.
> 
> Russia has (through Diplomacy) prevented the escalation of violence in Syria. and brokered a Deal with Iran on their Nuclear program.
> 
> That made some people very angry.



Yes- their diplomatic moves of sending more weapons to Syria have made the country more peaceful.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0G0MN20140117




> (Reuters) - In recent weeks Russia has stepped up supplies of military gear to Syria, including armored vehicles, drones and guided bombs, boosting President Bashar al-Assad just as rebel infighting has weakened the insurgency against him, sources with knowledge of the deliveries say.
> 
> Moscow, which is trying to raise its diplomatic and economic influence in the Middle East, has been a major provider of conventional weapons to Syria, giving Assad crucial support during the three-year civil war and blocking wider Western attempts to punish him with sanctions for the use of force against civilians.
> 
> The new Russian supplies come at a critically fluid stage of the conflict, with peace talks scheduled for next week in Switzerland, the factious opposition losing ground, and Western support for the rebellion growing increasingly wary of the role played by foreign militants. Syria has even said some countries formally opposed to Assad have begun discussing security cooperation with his government.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...9c0_story.html




> *Syrian army steps up bombardment of southern province*
> 
> BEIRUT — The Syrian army on Friday intensified its aerial bombardment of southern Syria as opposition fighters were preparing to launch a wide offensive in a province bordering Jordan, activists said.
> 
> The Local Coordination Committees opposition network and an anti-government activist in the area said air raids and government shelling in the southern province of Daraa killed at least two people Friday.





> The army in recent days also has stepped up its use of barrel bombs in deadly airstrikes on rebel-held areas of Daraa. The crude bombs — barrels filled with explosives, fuel and scraps of metal — had been used mostly against rebel-held areas in the northern city of Aleppo and near Damascus, Syria’s capital.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes- their diplomatic moves of sending more weapons to Syria have made the country more peaceful.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0G0MN20140117


Does the fact that they did that inherently make the country less peaceful in your view?

----------


## Zippyjuan

More people have died because of it- so, yes. 

Russia has one interest- Russia. Like many other countries including our own.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't know you people.
> 
> :weep:


Not really. 
If seriously Nazi pricks took over the State of Michigan and the UP had a choice to join and be protected by Canada.. 
I would jump at the chance. I think many here would.


And why does this whole thing get blamed on Russia.

Russia did not overthrow the Government of Ukraine..
Nazis did,, with help from others.

No one talks about the violent overthrow of the government of Ukraine..by Nazis.

They are welcoming it..

that is what I find most disturbing.

Russia securing their bases and offering protection to Russian People in the face of Very anti- Russian Nazis,,, I have no problem with that.

----------


## klamath

> Yes- their diplomatic moves of sending more weapons to Syria have made the country more peaceful.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0G0MN20140117
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...9c0_story.html


Syria is a Putin puppet nation.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes- their diplomatic moves of sending more weapons to Syria have made the country more peaceful.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0G0MN20140117
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...9c0_story.html


Good for them. They worked out a deal on the Chemical weapons,, and prevented the US from invading.

Now if someone can just cut off the weapons that are being supplied to the trash that invaded the country it may have an end.

I doubt it though.. There are folks with a strong intent at destabilization there.

----------


## klamath

> Not really. 
> If seriously Nazi pricks took over the State of Michigan and the UP had a choice to join and be protected by Canada.. 
> I would jump at the chance. I think many here would.
> 
> 
> And why does this whole thing get blamed on Russia.
> 
> Russia did not overthrow the Government of Ukraine..
> Nazis did,, with help from others.
> ...


Here are some more Nazi words to use as you are sure to run out at the rate you are going. I think you have the ADL beat. 
*Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi ]Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi*

----------


## pcosmar

> Here are some more Nazi words to use as you are sure to run out at the rate you are going. I think you have the ADL beat. 
> *Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi ]Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi  Nazi  Nazi*


Pictures worth a thousand words,

----------


## klamath

> Pictures worth a thousand words,


This is $#@!ing funny. You show pictures with fewer people than the amount of Nazis I gave you.

----------


## dannno

> appalled.
> 
> If America did what Russia did, y'all would be marching on Congress.
> 
> But Russia?  No, they are freaking heroes.
> 
> I don't know you people.
> 
> :weep:


A better analogy might be if Russian intelligence operatives went into Florida 30 years ago and funded a revolution to secede and then Russia installed an eastern friendly dictator in Florida and the people of Florida got fed up with their dictator and voted to go back to becoming apart of the US. The US is certainly not a great country and Florida might be better off without both the US or Russia, but I will admit that the US would likely have their better interest in mind and the people of Florida would likely recognize that over time just as Ukrainians have.

----------


## pcosmar

> This is $#@!ing funny. You show pictures with fewer people than the amount of Nazis I gave you.


Oh there are lots more..

There were $#@!ing parades of them in Ukraine.. That is who just took over there.

----------


## klamath

> Oh there are lots more..
> 
> There were $#@!ing parades of them in Ukraine.. That is who just took over there.


Oh, I can show you parades of communists too. Big $#@!ing deal.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Obviously, some of the strong armed tactics utilized during this election were not conducive to a fair election (are any elections perfect?). A referendum was already planned before this Ukraine chaos started. Would the options on the ballot have been the same if it had went down under very stable conditions? Would the outcome be the same? Guess we'll never know.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yes Russian troops were there; had they not been there the Fascists would not have allowed the referendum to go forward.  Most deaths and violence so far have occurred at the hands of the Fascists.  Perhaps I've missed:  have there been any deaths at the hands of the Russian military so far?
> 
> The element of force from the Russian side seems minimal and the little bit that was done was in order to allow a democratic referendum to be voted on.
> 
> Unless i'm missing something, this is not an "evil versus lesser evil" situation.  The violent coup versus democratic referendum is an apples versus oranges situation-- they do not even seem to be in the same class.


More good points. It's hard to know what would happen in alternative realities. If Putin had not sent people into Crimea, would Crimea have broken out in violence? Would it turn into another Serbia or Libya, with massive destruction, displacement and death?

If the goal is literally "peace keeping", Putin may be better at that than Obama...

----------


## klamath

> More good points. It's hard to know what would happen in alternative realities. If Putin had not sent people into Crimea, would Crimea have broken out in violence? Would it turn into another Serbia or Libya, with massive destruction, displacement and death?
> 
> If the goal is literally "peace keeping", Putin may be better at that than Obama...


Or Chechnya.....

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Or Chechnya.....


So he is learning from his mistakes?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not really. 
> If seriously Nazi pricks took over the State of Michigan and the UP had a choice to join and be protected by Canada.. 
> I would jump at the chance. I think many here would.
> 
> 
> And why does this whole thing get blamed on Russia.
> 
> Russia did not overthrow the Government of Ukraine..
> Nazis did,, with help from others.
> ...


I'm a Nazi prick because I recognize that countries invading other countries where neither party is America, is wrong?

It's only wrong when America invades random countries, but when another nation does it it's good?

And _I'm_ the Nazi prick?

ROFL!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Pictures worth a thousand words,


Blatant strawman.  Nobody here is defending those fascist bastards.  Try again.

----------


## klamath

> So he is learning from his mistakes?


Not really. if he can do it the easy way he will or the hard way he will. Syria is turning into a hard fought Putin win. There is blood all over that victory.

----------


## pcosmar

> Oh, I can show you parades of communists too. Big $#@!ing deal.


No you can't. There are no Communists and have never been any communists.. it is contrary to human nature and does not exist outside of fantasy.

You are so busty hating on Russians that you ignore the fact that the legitimate elected government was overthrown by Violent National Socialists(Nazis).

----------


## pcosmar

> Blatant strawman.  Nobody here is defending those fascist bastards.  Try again.


Actually,,* klamath* is. Because he is so blinded by his Cold War hatred of Russians.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm a Nazi prick because I recognize that countries invading other countries where neither party is America, is wrong?
> 
> It's only wrong when America invades random countries, but when another nation does it it's good?
> 
> And _I'm_ the Nazi prick?
> 
> ROFL!


Woah,, WTF?

Who called you anything? You are quoting me like I was addressing YOU..

Rather than the fictitious example I offered.

If you want to get your panties in a bunch at least have a reason.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

I'm listening to Ukrainians in 3 different southern regions, none of them want the EU/IMF/NATO invaders. Euro-Maidens-Svoboda-UDAR Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform, are the trouble makers. Kiev has gone nuts and obviously, it's being operated by external governments.

I hope the southern Oblasts get to declare independence from the Ukrainian rebellions of the east.  I am very surprise how informed they are and  educated on the destructive powers of the ECB/IMF/World Bank/Bank of Settlements/EX-Im Bank.  Very educated to national and international economic policies and history around the world, and immediately recognize the government will enrich themselves, by selling out the country and people to foreign debt economic agreements. 

It's a good feeling that some Ukrainians are far superior in economics and international affairs to any taught to Americans in US schools. BTW, they also have no respect for the US after the revealed overthrowing by Victoria Nuland/Jeffrey Pyatt... and didn't like John McCain and company inciting rebellion. They also know about the the US meddling and waring history of trouble in Georgia. They are sick of corrupt government officials, which, almost all of them have homes and estates in foreign lands they prefer to live in, than their homeland. They understand their country will used and extorted for it natural resources, as well as impoverishment through economic policies of inflation, which will carry on for a long time by borrowing from the IMF/ECB route. They even used examples of  Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Turkey. They welcome the ongoing stability and jobs from Russia and prefer the Russian government  over the much worse and instability Ukrainian government, that's for sale both domestically and foreign. There's much more, but people in the southern region don't want any part of Kiev's ongoing troubles and signing away of their country to the EU/WEST.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Woah,, WTF?
> 
> Who called you anything? You are quoting me like I was addressing YOU..
> 
> Rather than the fictitious example I offered.
> 
> If you want to get your panties in a bunch at least have a reason.


You were replying to me, but I misread the 1st paragraph.  You are also wrong, nobody here is justifying those fascist bastards.  Opposing the justification of Russia here is not the same thing as supporting the fascists.  Just because someone can see that what Russia is doing is wrong doesn't mean they think the fascists are OK.

If you oppose the Russian invasion then you must support the fascist takeover.  If you didn't vote for Romney you must support Obama. Is that really the craptacular weapon y'all are trying to use on us?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Actually,,* klamath* is. Because he is so blinded by his Cold War hatred of Russians.


I think you might have imagined this.  klamath has not, so far as I have seen, supported the fascists in any way, shape or form.  What I have seen is him opposing the fascists just as passionately as he opposes the Russians.  When you hate both sides of a thing, whether it's hating both the fascists and the Russians there, or hating both McCain and Obama here, apparently it's pretty common for folks on one side or the other to just kind of 'invent' your support for the people they hate.  This whole thing feels like Ron Paul 2008, like I'm in the rational 5% surrounded by a sea of unthinking partisans.

----------


## fr33

Imagine if your ancestors lived through the Ukrainian Famine and if you were so programmed to still be loyal to those who created that injustice. Those people are bigger sheeple than the average American.

----------


## fr33

I mean really... you were lucky enough that your father or mother wasn't cannibalized by your grandparents.... Vote for those who led to such an atrocity. You don't get more statist than that.

----------


## klamath

> I think you might have imagined this.  klamath has not, so far as I have seen, supported the fascists in any way, shape or form.  What I have seen is him opposing the fascists just as passionately as he opposes the Russians.  When you hate both sides of a thing, whether it's hating both the fascists and the Russians there, or hating both McCain and Obama here, apparently it's pretty common for folks on one side or the other to just kind of 'invent' your support for the people they hate.  This whole thing feels like Ron Paul 2008, like I'm in the rational 5% surrounded by a sea of unthinking partisans.


Pretty much it Gunny. posmar is without a doubt supporting putin. I support neither side and never have  but it doesn't matter because they are pure anti American no matter WHAT. right or wrong America is ALWAYS wrong.  I even support the right of Crimea to join Russian as long as Putin isn't making absolutely sure they don't dare vote any other way. He has a proven history of what he will do if they don't.

----------


## klamath

> No you can't. There are no Communists and have never been any communists.. it is contrary to human nature and does not exist outside of fantasy.
> 
> You are so busty hating on Russians that you ignore the fact that the legitimate elected government was overthrown by Violent National Socialists(Nazis).


Nazis and hitler never existed, it was all an conspiracy don't you know. You need to quit getting your  information from the wrong sources

----------


## charrob

> You must choose: become part of Russia or embrace a failed Constitution that was rejected the day it was proposed.  PICK ONE they are your only options.  This kind of manipulation is blatant and obvious when America does it, but completely invisible when anybody BUT America does it?  Really?


I dont think thats quite correct Gunny; that was the point of my thread, ie., to better understand question #2 on the ballot.

From the history provided from Lew Rockwells site in the post above, it appears that:

The purpose of the 1992 Constitution was to provide much greater autonomy for the Crimea.  The original May 5 version was complete separation and independence.  The May 6 version was apparently an extreme version of autonomy (comparable to the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, prior to the Constitution) where Crimea would even have its own President but would still be loosely tied to Ukraine.  This 1992 Constitution in both forms were apparently methods to obtain much greater autonomy from Ukraine.  And this 1992 Constitution was overwhelmingly supported by those who lived in Crimea.
Repeatedly throughout its history, from 1992 till today, it was the Ukrainian government who forcibly overruled the desire of the Crimean people who overwhelmingly supported this 1992 Constitutions ability for complete autonomyto the point of even having their own president.
It wasnt Russias job to provide complete autonomy.  It was Russias job to offer the status quo (which the 1992 Constitution seems to incorporate) or to offer the opportunity to join Russia.  And the people overwhelmingly chose to join Russia.

Im not seeing any kind of manipulation or force coming from Russia.   Thats not to say that there wasnt any:  I just havent seen any evidence of this in the news.  And Im very open to having my mind being changed about this if you can provide a source showing that there was force by Russia.





> posmar is without a doubt supporting putin.


Only in this instanceas I am.  Regarding Chechyna, Putin should let them have their independence, and think hes wrong in that case.  But in this instance I am not seeing any evidence that what Putin did was wrong.  

The people in Kiev are crazy:  theyve burned down 9 story buildings in the middle of the city and have beaten up unarmed cops and pro-Russian government officials.  The only way the referendum in Crimea could have taken place was to keep these people out of Crimea.  Personally Im impressed that Putin was able to accomplish this without a shot being fired.

Again, Im willing to have my mind changed if you can provide a source showing there has been any force during this election by Putin.

----------


## pcosmar

> .
> 
> If you oppose the Russian invasion then you must support the fascist takeover.


I don't see any "Russian Invasion".

Russian troops were there before the Nazi Coup. Crimea was a Russian port before Ukraine was an "independent" country. and before Crimea was even part of Ukraine.

Russia secured their Ports,  Bases and assets in the face of a violent overthrow of the legitimate government by radical anti-Russian groups.

That is not an invasion.

What puzzles me (well not really) is the immediate acceptance of  of the unelected regime that has claimed power in Ukraine,, and the refusal of recognition of Crimea's alliance with Russia. (which it has long history of being Russian)

----------


## klamath

> I dont think thats quite correct Gunny; that was the point of my thread, ie., to better understand question #2 on the ballot.
> 
> From the history provided from Lew Rockwells site in the post above, it appears that:
> 
> The purpose of the 1992 Constitution was to provide much greater autonomy for the Crimea.  The original May 5 version was complete separation and independence.  The May 6 version was apparently an extreme version of autonomy (comparable to the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, prior to the Constitution) where Crimea would even have its own President but would still be loosely tied to Ukraine.  This 1992 Constitution in both forms were apparently methods to obtain much greater autonomy from Ukraine.  And this 1992 Constitution was overwhelmingly supported by those who lived in Crimea.
> Repeatedly throughout its history, from 1992 till today, it was the Ukrainian government who forcibly overruled the desire of the Crimean people who overwhelmingly supported this 1992 Constitutions ability for complete autonomyto the point of even having their own president.
> It wasnt Russias job to provide complete autonomy.  It was Russias job to offer the status quo (which the 1992 Constitution seems to incorporate) or to offer the opportunity to join Russia.  And the people overwhelmingly chose to join Russia.
> 
> Im not seeing any kind of manipulation or force coming from Russia.   Thats not to say that there wasnt any:  I just havent seen any evidence of this in the news.  And Im very open to having my mind being changed about this if you can provide a source showing that there was force by Russia.
> ...


 Youcan't see that if there are foreign troops with a stated agenda to annex the area, standing outside polling places is an intimidation force? Does it not make you wonder that the now president of crimea was from a very minor party even in Chechnya yet when he ordered the Crimean parliament to vote for him at gun point they did?  
You are trying to blow off what Putin did in Chechnya  with a hand wave. Do you think the people of Crimea don't know what happened to Chechnya when THEY wanted independence? Do you think those same uniforms patrolling the polling place doesn't hold a huge intimidation factor? What violence that happened Kiev is nothing compared to what happened in Chechnya. You need to read up on it. Did you know that thousands of the anti Russian people of Crimea were sent to the Russian gulag? Do you not think that also comes to mind when they see the Russian troops and think about voting? Do  you not at least wonder who is in charge of matching voter registration with votes and wonder what those lists might be used for bearing in mind the regions history? Do you at least wonder if a retaliation list for Anti Russian people might be compiled from that?  
Do you at least wonder that a region like Chechnya that has enough independence minded people that they were able to fight for independence for centuries yet after they are crushed the Putin installed president gets 98% of the vote?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Good for them. They worked out a deal on the Chemical weapons,, and prevented the US from invading.
> 
> Now if someone can just cut off the weapons that are being supplied to the trash that invaded the country it may have an end.
> 
> I doubt it though.. There are folks with a strong intent at destabilization there.


Like Hezbollah?  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...syria/5818975/




> *Hezbollah takes lead in pounding Syrian rebels*
> 
> Hezbollah fighters have prevented a takeover of Damascus by rebels and now appear to be tipping the scales in Assad's favor.


The civil war in Syria started with peaceful protestors being fired upon by government soldiers.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don’t think that’s quite correct Gunny; that was the point of my thread, ie., to better understand question #2 on the ballot.
> 
> From the history provided from Lew Rockwell’s site in the post above, it appears that:
> 
> The purpose of the 1992 Constitution was to provide much greater autonomy for the Crimea.  The original May 5 version was complete separation and independence.  The May 6 version was apparently an extreme version of autonomy (comparable to the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, prior to the Constitution) where Crimea would even have its own President but would still be loosely tied to Ukraine.  This 1992 Constitution in both forms were apparently methods to obtain much greater autonomy from Ukraine.  And this 1992 Constitution was overwhelmingly supported by those who lived in Crimea.Repeatedly throughout its history, from 1992 till today, it was the Ukrainian government who forcibly overruled the desire of the Crimean people who overwhelmingly supported this 1992 Constitution’s ability for complete autonomy—to the point of even having their own president.
> It wasn’t Russia’s job to provide complete autonomy.  It was Russia’s job to offer the status quo (which the 1992 Constitution seems to incorporate) or to offer the opportunity to join Russia.  And the people overwhelmingly chose to join Russia.
> 
> I’m not seeing any kind of manipulation or force coming from Russia.   That’s not to say that there wasn’t any:  I just haven’t seen any evidence of this in the news.  And I’m very open to having my mind being changed about this if you can provide a source showing that there was force by Russia.
> 
> ...


You should not misquote people.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't see any "Russian Invasion".
> 
> Russian troops were there before the Nazi Coup. Crimea was a Russian port before Ukraine was an "independent" country. and before Crimea was even part of Ukraine.
> 
> Russia secured their Ports,  Bases and assets in the face of a violent overthrow of the legitimate government by radical anti-Russian groups.
> 
> That is not an invasion.
> 
> What puzzles me (well not really) is the immediate acceptance of  of the unelected regime that has claimed power in Ukraine,, and the refusal of recognition of Crimea's alliance with Russia. (which it has long history of being Russian)


*Who* has accepted the unelected regime that has taken power?

----------


## pcosmar

> *Who* has accepted the unelected regime that has taken power?


The US Gov.. The EU (Backers of the overthrow) Most of the Media,,( also owned by the Coup backers)
The same people that now refuse to recognize the vote of the Crimean People.

Russia's response was nothing more than a logical response to the violent overthrow of the existing government. and the installment of Vocally Anti Russian radicals in it's place. 
The fact that they had seized power put Russian assets and Russian people in jeopardy.
Russia preventing it's assets from being stolen.  (which I believe was the entire purpose of the Coup)

Russian Troops did not "invade".. They were there.. they had been there. There were agreements in place for them to be there.

There was no invasion despite the propaganda from the media.

The "ukrainian" Troops are for the most part Russian Troops.. And I would expect that the Ukrainian Military will side with Russia. (some reports of that already)

As far as non- intervention is concerned,, That should have been the call when we (USGOV) were supporting the Nazi groups that seized power.
I am not at all suggesting we be involved whatsoever. But rather that we should disengage. It is not and never was any of our business.

This guy sums it up pretty well.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...pdate-amp-More




> "Breathtaking levels of incompetence"
> 
> bout sums it up.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The US Gov.. The EU (Backers of the overthrow) Most of the Media,,( also owned by the Coup backers)
> The same people that now refuse to recognize the vote of the Crimean People.
> 
> Russia's response was nothing more than a logical response to the violent overthrow of the existing government. and the installment of Vocally Anti Russian radicals in it's place. 
> The fact that they had seized power put Russian assets and Russian people in jeopardy.
> Russia preventing it's assets from being stolen.  (which I believe was the entire purpose of the Coup)
> 
> Russian Troops did not "invade".. They were there.. they had been there. There were agreements in place for them to be there.
> 
> ...


Right, and _nobody_ around here is supporting the US Government on this.  Literally _nobody_.

----------


## pcosmar

> Right, and _nobody_ around here is supporting the US Government on this.  Literally _nobody_.


And what is your point then.?

I was responding to the CONSTANT attacks by *klamath* accusing anyone and everyone of being Commies for not Jumping on the Propaganda Bandwagon.

He has done this $#@! before with regards to the Militia,, or with anyone talking about resistance to government aggression.
Accusing me and others of being violent killers of children, for supporting self defense.

So what is your point? or are you just backing up this idiot..?

or are you panties still in a bunch over something I said long ago? (and I don't even remember what that was about)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And what is your point then.?
> 
> I was responding to the CONSTANT attacks by *klamath* accusing anyone and everyone of being Commies for not Jumping on the Propaganda Bandwagon.
> 
> He has done this $#@! before with regards to the Militia,, or with anyone talking about resistance to government aggression.
> Accusing me and others of being violent killers of children, for supporting self defense.
> 
> So what is your point? or are you just backing up this idiot..?
> 
> or are you panties still in a bunch over something I said long ago? (and I don't even remember what that was about)


We must live in alternate universes, because in my universe klamath is doing no such thing.  And I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or why you are accusing me of wearing panties.  Yet another product of your over-active imagination perhaps?

----------


## Danke

> ... why you are accusing me of wearing panties.


Well, you are an ex-Marine.  So I can see where he might get that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, you are an ex-Marine.  So I can see where he might get that.


No such thing as an "ex-marine."  Except maybe in North Korea.  Are you from North Korea?  Would explain a lot...

----------


## pcosmar

> No such thing as an "ex-marine."  Except maybe in North Korea.  Are you from North Korea?  Would explain a lot...


Perhaps if you unscrew your cap,,, 
You might be threaded a bit tight.

----------


## klamath

> We must live in alternate universes, because in my universe klamath is doing no such thing.  And I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or why you are accusing me of wearing panties.  Yet another product of your over-active imagination perhaps?


 Actually yeaw I have called some people violent, but maybe when I specifically see posts saying they were alright with killing the kid of janitor in an IRS building. When I specifically see people posting how the kids of bad cops should be raped and murdered, when I see posts of people saying cops families should be located and targeted, when I see the glorification of war being the answer to our problems  I have called it out...yes guilty as charged. I will proudly continue to be that antiviolence "idiot". I have called superior officers out for doing wrong in a combat zone so I am not intimidated by little keyboard warriors that like to agitate for war. 
As far as calling people commies, No lie.

----------


## Danke

> No such thing as an "ex-marine."  Except maybe in North Korea.  Are you from North Korea?  Would explain a lot...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Perhaps if you unscrew your cap,,, 
> You might be threaded a bit tight.


Oh I'll tell you exactly why I'm so angry.

We started this whole thing in 2007, and from that point on we have been treated to some of the most disgusting sophistic rhetoric.  "If you aren't with us, you are with the terr'ists." "If you aren't with McCain, you are for Obama." "If you aren't for Romney, you are for Obama."  These are the kinds of crappy rhetorical sophistries that have been levied against us like weapons for going on 7 years now.  

These forums used to be a safe haven from that kind of mental retardation.  To see that line of reasoning used here, on these forums, against our own people, by our own people....who have experienced this $#@! and should know better....is monumentally heart breaking.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 


ROFL did you just call yourself a monkey?

----------


## klamath

> ROFL did you just call yourself a monkey?


Devil dog against a monkey hmmm. Is the monkey the new AF mascot?

----------


## Danke

> ROFL did you just call yourself a monkey?


No, are you taking it literally enough to think of yourself as a dog?

----------


## klamath

> No, are you taking it literally enough to think of yourself as a dog?


To much rarified O2 or you truly don't know marines are highly proud of being called dogs.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Dog 




> According to United States Marine Corps legend, the moniker was used by German soldiers to describe U.S. Marines who fought in the Battle of Belleau Wood in 1918. The Marines fought with such ferocity that they were likened to "Dogs from Hell." The reports were made by American media and not verified by actual Germans. The "Devil Dogs" nickname for Marines first appeared in newspapers in the United States in April 1918 - about two months before the Battle of Belleau Wood. The LaCrosse Tribune ran a story about the nickname on April 27, 1918,[3] and other newspapers used the story as early as April 14, 1918.[4] The Battle of Belleau Wood began on June 1, 1918.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> To much rarified O2 or you truly don't know marines are highly proud of being called dogs.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Dog



^^^ Profoundly true.

----------


## Danke

> To much rarified O2 or you truly don't know marines are highly proud of being called dogs.


Sorry it went over your head also.

----------


## klamath

> Sorry it went over your head also.


Whether it did or not I think you missed the more humorous side of your own joke.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I'm a Nazi prick because I recognize that countries invading other countries where neither party is America, is wrong?
> 
> It's only wrong when America invades random countries, but when another nation does it it's good?
> 
> And _I'm_ the Nazi prick?
> 
> ROFL!


I do not think you are either a Nazi or a prick, and I agree that people should be more respectful in this debate, but I would respectfully disagree a bit with your characterization of the situation.  The Crimea is not a "random country" to Russia.  It became part of Russia five years before the America even came in to existence, and remained in union with Russia in one way or another until just over 20 years ago when it became detached due to what was essentially a technicality.  And over the 20 years of union with Kiev there has been a near continuous debate between those two about the status and autonomy of the region.  I wouldn't characterize what happened in the Crimea as an "invasion" such as Iraq because invasion has a connotation of being "unwanted" and that doesn't appear to be the case.  We never say Hitler "invaded" the Sudetenland, because that obviously wasn't the case.  We say he occupied it and I think the same wording should apply here.  Russia occupied the Crimea, with the enthusiastic support of the majority of the Crimean population.  

As an anarcho-captitalist, I don't have any great love for either the Russian or Ukranian Governments and would far prefer a situation where the Crimea breaks up in to independent city states if they have to have a government at all, but as somebody who hates war too, I'm happy Putin did what he did.  His swift action averted the possibility of Kiev moving troops in the Crimea first, which likely would have set off a Civil War at first and then a full on war between Russia and the Ukraine which would have resulted in thousands of deaths and yahoos in the US calling on us to join in the mess to set off World War III.  Putin solved the crisis, probably the best way it could have been solved, with a total death toll of under 3 people.

----------


## gwax23

> I do not think you are either a Nazi or a prick, and I agree that people should be more respectful in this debate, but I would respectfully disagree a bit with your characterization of the situation.  The Crimea is not a "random country" to Russia.  It became part of Russia five years before the America even came in to existence, and remained in union with Russia in one way or another until just over 20 years ago when it became detached due to what was essentially a technicality.  And over the 20 years of union with Kiev there has been a near continuous debate between those two about the status and autonomy of the region.  I wouldn't characterize what happened in the Crimea as an "invasion" such as Iraq because invasion has a connotation of being "unwanted" and that doesn't appear to be the case.  We never say Hitler "invaded" the Sudetenland, because that obviously wasn't the case.  We say he occupied it and I think the same wording should apply here.  Russia occupied the Crimea, with the enthusiastic support of the majority of the Crimean population.  
> 
> As an anarcho-captitalist, I don't have any great love for either the Russian or Ukranian Governments and would far prefer a situation where the Crimea breaks up in to independent city states if they have to have a government at all, but as somebody who hates war too, I'm happy Putin did what he did.  His swift action averted the possibility of Kiev moving troops in the Crimea first, which likely would have set off a Civil War at first and then a full on war between Russia and the Ukraine which would have resulted in thousands of deaths and yahoos in the US calling on us to join in the mess to set off World War III.  Putin solved the crisis, probably the best way it could have been solved, with a total death toll of under 3 people.


So much truth in this post...

----------


## Danke

> Whether it did or not I think you missed the more humorous side of your own joke.


Nope, you two apparently did.

----------


## charrob

> Does it not make you wonder that the now president of crimea was from a very minor party even in Chechnya yet when he ordered the Crimean parliament to vote for him at gun point they did?


First, what difference does it make that he was from a minor party?  Since the late 1990s I’ve been voting for 3rd parties and I bet if you got right down to it, most Americans are voting lesser of two evils and in actuality side with the ideology of one or more of the minor 3rd parties.

Second, I’ve not seen any news sources stating that the “now president of Crimea ordered the Crimean parliament to vote for him at gun point”.  Just because I haven’t seen any, doesn’t mean they don’t exist and I’d be happy to read any sources you could provide.  

Third, according to Lew Rockwell’s link I posted above, despite Crimea persistently wanting extreme autonomy from Ukraine since 1992 and repeatedly voting for this, the Ukrainian government consistently, and forcibly, denied them this.  And the Ukrainian government abolished Crimea from *ever* having its own president.

Here’s what wikipedia says about the Crimean government:

During the period of time in which Crimea was controlled by Ukraine, *the Council was unable to appoint the Prime Minister of Crimea on its own,* but had to appoint the Prime Minister with the advice *and consent of the President of Ukraine,* which *did not sit well with the Council and its constituents.*
During the 2014 Crimean crisis, while the Supreme Council building was under the control of unidentified pro-Russian gunmen, *the Council bucked Kiev* by appointing its *own* Prime Minister, Sergey Aksyonov.   
Days later, the Council declared Crimea independent of Ukraine following a referendum and signed a treaty with Russia making the Republic of Crimea a federal subject of Moscow. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkhovna_Rada_of_Crimea

From the above explanation, it would appear the force in Crimea has *always* come from Ukraine.  That they were *never* allowed to choose the leader they wanted.  And rather than the new Prime Minister holding the Council at gunpoint, that the Council bucked Kiev who was holding them at gunpoint (by having a Prime Minister that was appointed by, and represented the interests of, Kiev not Crimea).






> You are trying to blow off what Putin did in Chechnya with a hand wave. Do you think the people of Crimea don't know what happened to Chechnya when THEY wanted independence?


Incorrect.  I acknowledged Putin was wrong in Chechnya.  As for the rest where is your proof that the people in Crimea were intimidated?  Provide a link.  I’m not saying you’re wrong; I haven’t seen any news articles stating that Russian troops were watching people vote.

Unless you can provide that link, I think you are overlooking a very good possibility: and that is the possibility that maybe these people actually *want* to join the Russian Federation?  As shown in a recent election in Moldova, where the separatist group there voted to join Russia, there is the possibility Klamath that some people really do want to join the Russian Federation.  






> You can't see that if there are foreign troops with a stated agenda to annex the area, standing outside polling places is an intimidation force?


I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of the people living there.  If there was the element of fear involved, I would stay home.  Unless the news media is incorrect, there was an 83.1% turnout.

Was the Russian Military watching people as they voted?  I haven’t seen that in the news accounts I’ve read, but could very well have missed it?  That’s why I asked for a source or link you could provide.  I'm very open to changing my mind if there is evidence.




> Did you know that thousands of the anti Russian people of Crimea were sent to the Russian gulag? Do you not think that also comes to mind when they see the Russian troops and think about voting? Do you not at least wonder who is in charge of matching voter registration with votes and wonder what those lists might be used for bearing in mind the regions history? Do you at least wonder if a retaliation list for Anti Russian people might be compiled from that?


I guess I believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’.  Until I see verifiable evidence that there was intimidation in the latest election, I am not going to condemn Russia for an act that has not been proven.  However I have seen verifiable evidence that the U.S. orchestrated the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine because the Victoria Nuland conversation was published for everyone to hear.

If I were to be on a jury that had to decide the fate of a man being tried for murder, is it fair to bring up his past for the jury to hear?  Perhaps when he was 20 he got into a bar fight and accidentally killed a man.  He is now 50 years old and has led a decent violent-free life.  Would it be fair to bring up his past to taint the jury’s decision about a current incident?  I don’t think so.  I think the current incident needs to be weighed on its own.

----------


## klamath

> First, what difference does it make that he was from a minor party?  Since the late 1990s I’ve been voting for 3rd parties and I bet if you got right down to it, most Americans are voting lesser of two evils and in actuality side with the ideology of one or more of the minor 3rd parties.
> 
> Second, I’ve not seen any news sources stating that the “now president of Crimea ordered the Crimean parliament to vote for him at gun point”.  Just because I haven’t seen any, doesn’t mean they don’t exist and I’d be happy to read any sources you could provide.  
> 
> Third, according to Lew Rockwell’s link I posted above, despite Crimea persistently wanting extreme autonomy from Ukraine since 1992 and repeatedly voting for this, the Ukrainian government consistently, and forcibly, denied them this.  And the Ukrainian government abolished Crimea from *ever* having its own president.
> 
> Here’s what wikipedia says about the Crimean government:
> 
> During the period of time in which Crimea was controlled by Ukraine, *the Council was unable to appoint the Prime Minister of Crimea on its own,* but had to appoint the Prime Minister with the advice *and consent of the President of Ukraine,* which *did not sit well with the Council and its constituents.*
> ...


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-s-imperialism

----------


## charrob

> You should not misquote people.


I'm sorry Gunny, my bad.  Klamath had stated that.

----------


## UWDude

> More people have died because of it- so, yes. 
> 
> Russia has one interest- Russia. Like many other countries including our own.



America has not had American interests at heart for decades.  It has only had international banker interests.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm sorry Gunny, my bad.  Klamath had stated that.


I'm sorry too, I've been touchy because of some of the things I've seen here that really bother me.  But I know we can overcome them, because we simply must.  There is a storm coming that will strip everything down to bare essentials.  The less we all hate each other, the more and better changes we will see in our direction going forward.  There is too much hate going around right now and I am just itchy with it.  Not just here but over the Senate primary too.  I have broken some pretty extreme ground and it had been intense.  The monsters I expect to be hateful, but I think liberty needs a home.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> You can't see that if there are foreign troops with a stated agenda to annex the area, standing outside polling places is an intimidation force?


Amazingly enough, some voters in Crimea wrote in "Obama". Some say there was intimidation...

----------


## pcosmar

> You can't see that if there are foreign troops with a stated agenda to annex the area, standing outside polling places is an intimidation force?


Russian Troops in a Russian Port  where over half the people are Russian and where there are good relations with that neighbor for hundreds of years is not exactly "foreign Troops". (Crimea has only been "not Russian" technically for a rather short time)

----------

