Crimea votes to join Russia, accelerating Ukraine crisis

[HOLLYWOOD]

Well, after the Civil War, the North came and amended the NC State Constitution to add a loyalty clause the the federal government, and then pointed bayonets at legislators chests until they voted for it.

Don't forget the carpetbaggers... and it continues to this day. Carpetbaggers & Banksters stealing the wealth of the timid, weak, and controlled.

Look back to 2008 collapse... the US officials and international banksters were auditing and inflicting austerity on Eastern European countries. We even covered here on RPF on why Department of State and US Treasury officials were scouring the eastern European finance ministries books/budgets/bailouts/etc. It wasn't to protect the people, or the nation, it was to protect the International Banksters and their outstanding loans. Pump, Dump, people pay for the bubbles/collapse/debts.

Hell, the scrimmage game was in the 1990s, when House Speaker Newt Gingrich Gang/Clinton Clan in bailing out Mexico... which wasn't about bailing out Mexico, but rescuing the US Banking Cabal and their outstanding loans in Mexico.

 

[idiom]

There is no evidence of US covert OPs.

So you are arguing that Obama has reversed 70 years of US policy in foreign affairs?

That carries a bigger burden of proof than the claim the US is involved in the Ukrainian Coup.

 

[pcosmar]

OK, then Texas and Mexico.

Ok,, and if Texas seceded and asked Mexico for assistance then Mexico could give it.

But I know of no Mexican Military bases in Texas.. so that is a bit different.

 

[klamath]

I think you're partially forgetting WHY we (most of us*) are strict noninterventionists, i.e. why we oppose "genuinely humanitarian" wars in addition to others: Imagine US intervention did right by people in other countries, and imagine we were invited over a "legitimate" government (whatever the hell that means) or some majority or supermajority threshold of people, making the intervention compatible with national sovereignty. We'd still be unwelcome in the eyes of their minority constituents, sure, but so would their own local government, so only a voluntaryist could consistently take issue over that. The bigger issue is that it STILL doesn't do right by US soldiers and taxpayers, and moreover, that's directly relevant to our own situation and fate as a country. Russia is doing something similar right now in their abuse of Russian taxpayers and soldiers, and they also seem to be placing Crimea under a martial law scenario, which is wrong whether most Crimeans want them there or not. Right now, what Russia is doing in Crimea is a problem for Russian and Crimean citizens to concern themselves with.

However, some other government committing a wrong on the other side of the world is simply not the biggest problem on our plate right now. Focusing on condemning Russian intervention would be idle moral judgment for its own sake, and while there's a time and a place for that, it's a hell of a lot less relevant to the problems we're facing as a country. Barring reckless interventionism, we can't do anything about Russian intervention...but we can and must denounce and oppose US intervention for our own sakes. Should we really have to point out "and Russia's wrong too" every single post just to keep up our street cred while we're worrying about the direct impact US intervention will have on Americans? Of course Russia's wrong, just like every government in the history of the world has been wrong for virtually everything it has ever done...but is it really any wonder why people worry more about continued US intervention threatening the future of the United States than Russian intervention violating the NAP and arguably national sovereignty on the other side of the world?

*I haven't been clear about this point, so I'll concede a point: While the forum majority is strictly noninterventionist, we've always had a big tent from the beginning. There have always been some paleocons and such who support intervention under limited circumstances (such as if we're invited by a "legitimate" government/majority and it's simultaneously in our "national interests"), but who still agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy as a general rule and condemn the all-consuming pursuit of a global empire. pcosmar's views for instance are more along these lines. I'd rather they were strict noninterventionists, but is it really fair to lump them in with those who "like Ron Paul on everything but foreign policy" and compare them to neocons and attack the forum's credibility over it? Their opinions will differ from the lockstep libertarian and lockstep Ron Paul take on the issue, but it hardly makes the movement "fake" just because not everyone is in lockstep, and it's also unfair to paint the forum with a broad brush and besmirch people who are strict noninterventionists...which most of us are.

I never said All of the forum but enough of the top posters are so far off of my beliefs that I can't call myself a proud member of the public face the forum is showing. I post here only as a private person posting as I would on any political forum.
Maybe I am not making myself clear but members that have long histories of being STRICT US noninterventionists even to the smallest border crossing or even opinions against foreign governments that now are aping the same words and tactics I have heard for years from Neoconservatives being used in support of Russian intervention.

 

[klamath]

So you are arguing that Obama has reversed 70 years of US policy in foreign affairs?

That carries a bigger burden of proof than the claim the US is involved in the Ukrainian Coup.

Are you arguing that Putin has reversed a thousand years of Russian interference? Russia actually has the very same leader that brutally crushed Chechnya.

 

[klamath]

If the Russian are wanted there by the people of Crimea, which it sure seems they are, it's not an intervention.

And I pointed out that nearly 80% of the Iraqi people want Sadamn gone and welcomed us,, would that make it not an intervention?

 

[klamath]

that is because they are covert.....duh....

otherwise they would be on CNN right?

you cant prove there was not so it is all speculation

but many are acting like it is a solid unquestionable fact. I speculate that many countries have covert ops going on.

 

[Mini-Me]

And I pointed out that nearly 80% of the Iraqi people want Sadamn gone and welcomed us,, would that make it not an intervention?

No, it would still be an intervention, but it wouldn't be an especially good analogy. If the 80% figure was correct though, and the US hadn't committed a ton of collateral murder in the process of defending people from a tyrant at their supposed request, then the biggest crimes committed in the case of the Iraq War would have been against the American people: Extorting US taxpayers for the supposed sake of the Iraqi people on the diametrically opposite side of the world, getting a bunch of soldiers killed for reasons they didn't sign up for, exposing all of us to danger from blowback, and further enforcing a unipolar world that endangers the future of human liberty everywhere. That's a hell of a reason for Americans to oppose it, but aside from the last point (not applicable to Russia's actions in Crimea but certainly applicable to US interventions) it wouldn't have been such a compelling reason for everyone around the world to bother themselves over it and take time out of their day to sit in moral judgment. Of course, the horrors that actually HAPPENED and enormous (and predictable) death tolls kind of changed that picture, hence all the condemnation from all corners of the globe. The difference between an occupation by a next-door neighbor with "no shots fired" and a bloody regime change with hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and occupation by a pervasive empire ruled from a world away isn't exactly negligible, particularly in the context of comparisons and analogies. Crimea isn't comparable to Iraq for the same reason it's not comparable to Chechnya, and then some. I disagree with all of them of course, but I'm cognizant of their incomparable scales and circumstances as well.

 

[Demigod]

The best solution would probably be a two-step thing; a modified two state solution.

Divide the Ukraine along that yellow and red map, both new nations (neither named "Ukraine") gaining recognition around the world as independent sovereign nations. Upon recognition, both enter into a very loose trade and peace confederacy named "Ukraine."

Now you have one sovereign nation in the East besties with Russia, another sovereign nation in the west besties with Europe; and still one Ukraine that the citizens can live and work in without restriction of national origin.

I bring that up, because we have to remember that votes are shaped by the options on the ballot and how they are asked, just like any poll. I guarantee you that the ^ above option was not a choice in the voting booth. If it were, and it were a fair vote, I wonder if the people of the Ukraine would go for such a plan? More likely though they had to vote on the following order:

o - I want to be free, safe and protected by Mother Russia
o - I want to help the Eurotraitors crush my family culture

So it could have been an extremely fair and uncoerced vote, and still end up heavily manipulated. Never forget F-U Frank Luntz.

The people who are in power do not want to share power.This same proposal was given during the Yugoslavia crisis,that all 6 republics get autonomy in how they arrange their economy and political structure + decentralize the budget so some countries don't pay for others ( although this part was a little hypocritical because some of those states had all the money go into their countries for decades and later on when it was their turn to pay they wanted to secede ) and it was refused by almost everyone in power because none of them cared about the country,the people or something like that.All they cared about was becoming "masters" in their own little fiefdoms all the while being backed and serving to some foreign countries.

As for the vote options yes you are right both options on the ballot at the time had the same meaning.One option was independence and the other one was full autonomy.

 

[klamath]

No, it would still be an intervention, but it wouldn't be an especially good analogy. If the 80% figure was correct though, and the US hadn't committed a ton of collateral murder in the process of defending people at their supposed request, then the biggest crimes committed in the case of the Iraq War would have been against the American people: Extorting US taxpayers for the supposed sake of the Iraqi people on the diametrically opposite side of the world, getting a bunch of soldiers killed for reasons they didn't sign up for, and exposing all of us to danger from blowback. That's a hell of a reason for Americans to oppose it, but it wouldn't have been such a compelling reason for everyone around the world to bother themselves over it and take time out of their day to sit in moral judgment. Of course, the horrors that actually HAPPENED and enormous (and predictable) death tolls kind of changed that picture, hence all the condemnation from all corners of the globe.

And that is what I thought. State as a fact that if the people want you there then it is not an invasion but point out the reverse and then somehow some other rules apply. Constantly changing the rules about what interventionism is depending on which country it is being applied to won't work for me.

 

[singe22]

And I pointed out that nearly 80% of the Iraqi people want Sadamn gone and welcomed us,, would that make it not an intervention?

Dont know if i'm wrong but thought you mentioned on another thread your a vet? But I don't know when or where you landed on the timeline on the invasion of Iraq, but of my multiple tours i never once ran into the abundance of Haji poo tang throwing themselves happily at their American liberators.

Iraq was a invasion trumped up by lies. Remember the reports on the WMD's? the 9/11 connection? I'm sorry but i'd like to read this process on how some 3rd world minority group gets to contact my government about aid and military assistance in overthrowing their oppressors. We cant even get our president to have a on the books legit convo with a Ron or Rand paul.

 

[Mini-Me]

And that is what I thought. State as a fact that if the people want you there then it is not an invasion but point out the reverse and then somehow some other rules apply. Constantly changing the rules about what interventionism is depending on which country it is being applied to won't work for me.

Nice straw man attack. I didn't "state as a fact" the Crimean people want Russia there. I think it's pretty likely the occupation is popular, but that's neither here nor there: Someone ELSE said Russia was invited, and YOU offered the comparison of Iraq (with an arbitrary 80% invitation rate) as a counterpoint to demonstrate why Russian occupation would still be wrong even if invited. The working assumption underlying your comparison - which you made for the sake of argument - was that both powers were invited, and that the situations are comparable. I ran with your comparison and deconstructed it by illustrating the many differences impacting how much people outside the affected countries would concern themselves with it, and I explicitly agree that all of the above still count as interventions that I disagree with (despite them being totally incomparable). Why are you so insistent on misrepresenting people's posts and posting trollish "I WIN" garbage like "And that is what I thought?"

 

[klamath]

Dont know if i'm wrong but thought you mentioned on another thread your a vet? But I don't know when or where you landed on the timeline on the invasion of Iraq, but of my multiple tours i never once ran into the abundance of Haji poo tang throwing themselves happily at their American liberators.

Not very like you were going to get a lot of sexual favors from a Muslim culture.

 

[klamath]

Nice straw man attack. I didn't "state as a fact" the Crimean people want Russia there. I think it's pretty likely the occupation is popular, but that's neither here nor there: YOU offered the comparison of Iraq as a counterpoint to demonstrate why Russian occupation is wrong even if invited, so the working assumption underlying your comparison was that both powers were invited, and the situations are comparable. I deconstructed the comparison by presenting the many differences, and I explicitly agreed that all of the above still count as interventions that I disagree with. Why are you so insistent on misrepresenting people's posts?

When you answer the question posed to another poster where it WAS stated as fact it will be assumed you are defending that position.

 

[Mini-Me]

When you answer the question posed to another poster where it WAS stated as fact it will be assumed you are defending that position.

No, I was saying your comparison was still ludicrous in any case (that is, assuming equal or greater Iraqi acceptance of Americans compared to Crimean acceptance of Russians), and if you weren't constantly looking for an excuse to say "GOTCHA," you would have known that.

IF the circumstances in Iraq had been more like Crimea, there'd still be a hell of a reason for Americans to oppose going into Iraq, just like there's a good reason for Russians to oppose going into Crimea (although they'd still have less factors to be outraged about, e.g. geographical distance). International observers would have far less reason to go out of their way to pass fire and brimstone judgment though (other than the growing worry of US hegemony all over the globe threatening autonomy and liberty everywhere, forever). That is, if your Iraq = Crimea comparison was reasonable, it would have been reasonable for noninterventionists around the world to behave much like me and say, "It's wrong, but we have bigger fish to fry closer to home," or for others who aren't such sticklers about absolute noninterventionism to say, "It don't befront me none." However, your comparison simply isn't reasonable or valid, given the VASTLY different circumstances, so the crimes in Crimea and Iraq are objectively different both qualitatively and quantitatively. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians a world away is a tad different from occupying your next-door neighbor with no shots fired on the evil scale...and for the millionth time, that doesn't mean I agree with either. It just means I know how to prioritize.

 

[devil21]

The blather is thick, the factual reporting is thin.

The only way I can see for the citizens of this republic to make an intelligent decision on this issue is this: McCain is for intervention, so we would almost certainly be wiser to oppose it.

Agreed, that is a strong indicator for at least building a foundation for understanding what's going on and who is pulling the strings in the background.

Also, and arguably even MORE of an indicator, is when Henry Kissinger weighs in. Whatever he says comes from the CFR/NWO types.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

 

[politics]

The best solution would probably be a two-step thing; a modified two state solution.

Divide the Ukraine along that yellow and red map, both new nations (neither named "Ukraine") gaining recognition around the world as independent sovereign nations. Upon recognition, both enter into a very loose trade and peace confederacy named "Ukraine."

Now you have one sovereign nation in the East besties with Russia, another sovereign nation in the west besties with Europe; and still one Ukraine that the citizens can live and work in without restriction of national origin.

I bring that up, because we have to remember that votes are shaped by the options on the ballot and how they are asked, just like any poll. I guarantee you that the ^ above option was not a choice in the voting booth. If it were, and it were a fair vote, I wonder if the people of the Ukraine would go for such a plan? More likely though they had to vote on the following order:

o - I want to be free, safe and protected by Mother Russia
o - I want to help the Eurotraitors crush my family culture

So it could have been an extremely fair and uncoerced vote, and still end up heavily manipulated. Never forget F-U Frank Luntz.

The confederation idea would be an excelent choice.
But the main problem that bring them to this point wont let it happen.
Because Ukraine goes entirely in the EU, or doesn't, just that simple
So, sadly, that won't be a choice in the ballot.

 

[klamath]

No, I was saying your comparison was still ludicrous in any case (that is, assuming equal or greater Iraqi acceptance of Americans compared to Crimean acceptance of Russians), and if you weren't constantly looking for an excuse to say "GOTCHA," you would have known that.

IF the circumstances in Iraq had been more like Crimea, there'd still be a hell of a reason for Americans to oppose going into Iraq, just like there's a good reason for Russians to oppose going into Crimea (although they'd still have less factors to be outraged about, e.g. geographical distance). International observers would have far less reason to go out of their way to pass fire and brimstone judgment though (other than the growing worry of US hegemony all over the globe threatening autonomy and liberty everywhere, forever). That is, if your Iraq = Crimea comparison was reasonable, it would have been reasonable for people around the world to behave much like me, i.e. "It's wrong, but we have bigger fish to fry closer to home," or like some others here, e.g. "It don't befront me none." However, your comparison simply isn't reasonable or valid, given the VASTLY different circumstances, so the crimes in Crimea and Iraq are objectively different both qualitatively and quantitatively. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians a world away is a tad different from occupying your next-door neighbor with no shots fired on the evil scale...and for the millionth time, that doesn't mean I agree with either.

The hundreds of thousands you speak of were mostly killed by the different factions killing each other.
I disagree. I am against them both and will continue to call out against military intervention and the defense of it whatever side it is on. If you continue to defend the defenders of Russian intervention we will continue to disagree.

 

[Mini-Me]

The hundreds of thousands you speak of were mostly killed by the different factions killing each other.
I disagree. I am against them both and will continue to call out against military intervention and the defense of it whatever side it is on. If you continue to defend the defenders of Russian intervention we will continue to disagree.

One question: After everything I've written in this thread, and after saying countless times that Russia's actions are indeed wrong if different in scale, do you SERIOUSLY have the gall to suggest I'm supporting Russian intervention by deconstructing logically invalid comparisons?

Note the word "defending" might apply on a scale relative to other interventions, but it's also grossly misleading, because I absolutely have not defended Russia's actions as justified or anything better than "less evil," i.e. still wrong. There are some who do, but your comparisons between them and neocons are still utterly invalid for all the reasons I've already given, and just because I deconstructed those comparisons does not mean I agree with the people I'm defending from overreaching accusations.

 

[klamath]

One question: After everything I've written in this thread, and after saying countless times that Russia's actions are indeed wrong if different in scale, do you SERIOUSLY have the gall to suggest I'm supporting Russian intervention by deconstructing logically invalid comparisons?

Question. Where did I say you were for Russian interference? I said I will disagree with you IF you defend those that ARE defending Russian interference.