Posted on 04/25/2014 9:14:33 AM PDT by FreeReign
“rb —> I believe Russia could have easily gotten about 60% of the vote in an honest plebiscite, maybe even 80% of the vote (as many Ukrainians there are Russian speakers and also have fallen for Mosowite propaganda fanning flamboyant fascist fears)
Ukraine and Russia are also ethnically, linguistically and historically very close, very close indeed.”
I honestly believe Russia would have lost the vote for transfer. But in the same breath I acknowledge that the question is academic and I don’t really care about the outcome either way.
““Im unaware of any clause in Russian law that makes annexing Crimea illegal.”
One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on FR. Russian law does not supersede Ukrainian law. Crime was sovereign land of Ukraine. Period end of story. Russia took it illegally.”
So we are talking about Ukrainian law... Well I can’t say im going to cry a river over one country violating the laws of anther with it’s army in war.
This is the sort of thing that just goes with the territory of War.
““Such a breach of Russian law is in any event their business.”
Of course, it is Ukrainian law that is valid in this issue. And that is no business of Russia.
“
On this We agree, Ukrainian law is apparently no business of Russia’s. lol
If a conservative has no problem with a sovereign country being violated by the coercive use of force of a government, which is the biggest of Big Govt., they are really no conservative at all.
And there protestations of government intrusions into domestic concerns are not genuine.
“If a conservative has no problem with a sovereign country being violated by the coercive use of force of a government, which is the biggest of Big Govt., they are really no conservative at all.”
Actually a Government big enough to claim the right to impose its “law” upon all the world is the biggest government of all.
Russia may be a big government internally, it may even be imposing big Government on Crimea. But Russia is most notably NOT our government. Nor is Russia in a position to become our government. But following a policy of embracing a concept of “international law” that would require us to impose government on Russia IS to create the biggest government of all.
“Actually a Government big enough to claim the right to impose its “law” upon all the world is the biggest government of all.”
So, red is green and right is wrong in your little 84 Animal Farm.
The accepted international norm of NOT INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY for the purpose of annexation is not imposing your will on anybody.
UR backasswards.
“The accepted international norm of NOT INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY for the purpose of annexation is not imposing your will on anybody.”
Perhaps you should examine what your saying there.
You are proposing that we enforce what you call “international norm”.
To do that you had to:
A: Define such a Standard and declare it uniform across all nations with or without their consent.
B: Enforce such a standard upon any nation that doesn’t agree with or follow the rule you came up with, thus making it a rule/law rather than simply a ‘norm’.
That is an act of ‘international’ Government whether you like it or not.
“UR backasswards.”
Call me names all you like, but But I don’t approve of world government, and therefore also enforcing such a ‘governments’ concept of ‘international law’, wether you call that law a “international norm” or not. If you enforce it, it is not a “norm” but a rule/law.
Im sorry Russia and the Ukraine are not behaving in a way that you call “normal”. There is no law against that nor should there ever be so long as Both Russia and Ukraine are sovereign and independent states. They have the right to engage in war, as well as levy peace, conduct trade, ect...
What I see them doing right now is normal, as it has been done by countless nations thou out history.
“That is an act of ‘international’ Government whether you like it or not.”
No, that is hyperbole on your part. Accepting international norms of civilized behavior, such as NOT INVADING OTHER SOVEREIGN NATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION, is NOT international Government.
It is a norm that has been accepted for some time. Nazi Germany was called out, the militarists in Japan, the communists in North Korea and the Soviet Union.
“They (Russia)have the right to engage in war, as well as levy peace, conduct trade, ect...”
But yet you hypocritically deny the right of other nations such as the US to respond, or an alliance of free nations to prevent such actions by a pathetic rogue nation such as Russia.
Why is it that historically despotic nations have a “right” to do this but historically free nations are part of a grand conspiracy for world government overthrow when they attempt to prevent despots from putting their Jack Boots on the neck of people who wish to be free?
You conspiracy nuts have a silly double standard that speaks more to paranoia and delusion than principle.
“No, that is hyperbole on your part. Accepting international norms of civilized behavior, such as NOT INVADING OTHER SOVEREIGN NATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION, is NOT international Government.”
It seems to escape you that the very concept of being independent and self-governing includes the ability to be what Other might call “uncivilized”. Althou the General idea is living by your own rules.
As for the reasons a country can make war, acquisition of resources and territory is historically the most common.
The U.S. has gone to war for this reason on a number of successful occasions.
“It is a norm that has been accepted for some time. Nazi Germany was called out, the militarists in Japan, the communists in North Korea and the Soviet Union.”
I suppose you never heard of the Treaty of Versailles which Nazi Germany was clearly violating, nor any of the other mutual defense treaties that obligated England and France to join the war when Poland was invaded.
That being said it is worth noting that the USA felt no such obligation, which was our sovereign right, to be used wisely or unwisely.
The Korean war was in fact a UN action, and as disagreeable as the whole affair turned out to be the US was involved because we felt stopping the advance of communism across the Korean pennesila was important to our own national interest. Vietnam Likewise. IT was Bush the first that tried to declare a new world order in which some country’s couldn’t invade other country’s for money. But this of course has been mostly ignored ever sense.
African countries invade each other for land and resources all the time as to country all over the world. In the 1980’s Russia was even then no exception with their various campaigns, namely Afghanistan, but there we once again felt a national interest to inhibit the Growth of Communism.
“But yet you hypocritically deny the right of other nations such as the US to respond, or an alliance of free nations to prevent such actions by a pathetic rogue nation such as Russia.”
I obviously don’t deny that the USA has a right to get involved. Of course we do. We also got a right to Invade Mexico and Canada for their land if we want it.(we did before).
I just don’t see how getting involved with the Ukraine war benefits us in any meaningful way worthy of the cost of getting involved.
Probably something to do with the strong pro-Russian sentiments shared by a majority of those living in east Ukraine.
“IT was Bush the first that tried to declare a new world order in which some country’s couldn’t invade other country’s for money. But this of course has been mostly ignored ever sense.”
Conspiracy claptrap. Bush didn’t declare a “new world order” in the sense of your literal meaning. And sure sure, any country has a right to invade another. But there are internationally accepted norms violated that these are responded to.
Willful believers in Utopia will always attempt to appease first, but eventually they are responded to.
WWII Germany ....allies declare war
Japan Asian conquests...severe economic sanctions
Japan...US immediate war declaration
North Korea....immediate counter
NVietnam....advisors, eventually countered
Iraq...Kuwait invasion beaten back
Afghanistan....base of operations for AQ....invaded
I think when and if we have to stop Russia’s clever manipulation of the left’s senses it will be at the border of Poland, with-whom we have a defense treaty with.
If the Ukraine or any other country wants our help they need to join NATO, and thus obligate themselves to give help in exchange.
I won’t pretend to know for sure what Bush the elder was hoping to accomplish with that speech. Honestly it doesn’t matter, I refereed to it only because it was my notion that he was attempting to promoting that concept of enforcement of your notion of ‘norms’(AKA law) of among the world.
I guess the point is, we got a lot of people in Washington who seem to think we got to not only dictate law to other nations but utilizes our money and power to enforce that law. This is not only unfair to the American people who must pay for this, its unfair to the rest of the world as it violates their Equal sovereign right to govern themselves as it is an attempt at imposing a form of global law(thus also government) like we discussed before.
I understand the intentions of these people is to promote peace and security, but the cost of that peace and security is too high, as they are going about it without the consent of the governed.
If the Ukraine wants our help they have to agree to give help in exchange thou treaty. Instead they made a treaty with Russia who is attempting to ‘help’ them in its own way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.