The Coalition of the Willing consisted of 46 countries, so with 54 opposed, it is true that most countries that expressed an official stance were opposed.
‘Different levels of “most”’ is spot-on, 54-46 is obviously lot closer than 100-11.
I understand that you are saying that this group of nations /sovereign states[/U]are 11 specific states that voted against something that fine and upstanding states and nations voted for. And for that they considered to be states full of “a coterie of undesirable people” and are kept upon some kind of list. Another word for “a coterie of undesirable people” in my mind is the word rogue. And side everybody is talking about states I certainly see no fault with referring to XT personal slur against me as saying I am associated in some with rogue states that voted against.
Being a part of a do-gooder and never-does-wrong nation I could easily vote yes for a meaningless non-action pile of words at the UN in order to serve some political or economic self-interest because the vote does not lead to war or any real punishment of Russia. There is de facto acceptance in the air that Crimea is a fait accompli and there is nothing going to be done with it.
So once again XT Mace Human Action have chosen to slur me personally with this bogus Rogues’s Gallery attack because they apparently aren’t feeling well about their meaningless and falseified high moral authoritative point of view.
What is your opinion about this question? Do you think there was a trigger and do you think Russia acted correctly or not? (I posted my opinion about this above)
[QUOTE=Human Action;17239660.
‘Different levels of “most”’ is spot-on, 54-46 is obviously lot closer than 100-11.[/QUOTE]
No UN vote to condemn the Iraq invasion atrocity.
Just these countries condemning it on their own.
No punishment for the perps who are responsible for deaths of 200,000 human being and trillions of dollars of resources going to the waste that is war…
How many died for Russia’s decision to back a local uprising of declaration of independence. (1) and we have to have a vote.
This is the list of non-rogue states who voiced in opposition to what the rogue states biolently did to Iraq.
Ukraine is not on this list. Why are they bitching now? Russia was on this list. Good for them.
The 54 following countries have protested formally and officially the prosecution of this war. They oppose the Iraq War in principle, citing in some cases that they believe it is illegal, and in others that it required a United Nations mandate.
African Union[90]
Arab League (except Kuwait)[91] Algeria
Bahrain
Comoros
Djibouti
Egypt
Iraq Iraq
Jordan
Lebanon
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
European Union Austria[92][citation needed]
Belgium[93]
France[94]
Germany[94]
Greece[95]
Slovenia
Sweden
Argentina[96]
Bangladesh
Belarus[97]
Brazil[98]
Canada[99]
Chile[100]
China[101]
Croatia
Cuba[102]
Dominica
Ecuador
India[103]
Iran[104]
Indonesia[105]
Liechtenstein
Malaysia[106]
Mexico[100]
New Zealand[107]
North Korea
Pakistan[108]
Russia[94]
Switzerland
Turkey
Vatican City[109]
Venezuela[110]
No, because the Coalition of the Willing were the ones who participated in some way or another. One needn’t participate to approve (or not disapprove).
There are 193 Nations in the UN General Assembly. The CotW + Opposed = 100, leaving 93 unaccounted for. Saying that most countries were opposed to the Iraq war could be true, but I don’t think we have any way of actually knowing.
The trigger is the participation by some right wing nationalists in the violent overthrow and illegal removal of an elected president in the latter days of February that triggered a chain of events. The threat to the President’s life and subsequent removal from office without any constitutional means led to a 'breakaway spontaneous and popular uprising; by the legislators in Crimea that was backed by pro-separatists militia that was home grown and with ranks being filled with Ukrainian military and police defectors at a rapid pace.
The Crimean separatists movement signaled they had taken much of the control of Crimea outside of the bases where Russian troops were legally stationed. They feared the Ukrainian government was being absorbed by anti-Russian nationalists and could gain control of the army and police in Crimea and do harm. So they requested protection by Russian Forces already in Crimea and that could be brought into Crimea if possible.
Crimea was not a part of Ukraine in revolutionary sense after the declaration to separate was announced and Ukraine security forces could no longer over power and arrest them. They formed a new government spontaneously and because of the trigger that was pulled in Ukraine, buy Ukrainians.
Any Russian troops that left the bases where they were legally stations should not be considered ‘invaders’ since they were responding to calls for assistance by the new formed ‘rebel’ government of Crimea.
Forming a ‘rebel’ government is a violation of Ukraine’s constitutions however the major violation of Ukraine’s constitution had already been presented.
Because it was violence in Kiev that pulled the trigger I can accept that the Crimean’s reaction was wrong in a strict legal international sense with respect to respect for territorial integrity of nations, however I must have much less sympathy for Ukraine’s territorial integrity in light of the fact of the violence and chaos and illegal government in Kiev that is only now cracking down on the right wing extremists that were free to roam the streets the past few months to stir up violence and bloodshed to push their agenda through the threat of violence and protest against a government.
I tend to side with the rebels in Crimea more than the rebels in Kiev. And the western media is not reporting this story in any objective sense to tell both sides.
That is the most dangerous element of all as far as I’m concerned.
You cannot be serious. North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, et al…these nations aren’t considered to be less than stellar examples of nation-states because they voted “no” on this resolution.
Even though “rogue state” is a different term with a different meaning? What a fun game!
Another word for “government by the people” is “democracy”. And since everybody is talking about governments I see no fault with referring to saying I approve of “government by the people” as saying I approve of the German Democratic Republic. You have slandered me as an apologist for Soviet-backed tyranny!
There’s no such thing.
What a bizarre stance. Only nations that are willing to go to war over an issue are able to take a meaningful position on it? If, say, Canada isn’t going to launch missiles at Russia over this, then their condemnation means nothing? You’re like an onion, every new layer reveals a new, ever-shifting, incredibly strange worldview.
Please quote where I’ve slurred you. I pointed out your mistake; foolishly, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives. I really should know better by now.
And when you’re reduced to using “moral point of view” as a slander, it’s indicative of the moral bankruptcy of your own view.
Good for them? You must be blinded by your America-phobic ideology. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Their condemnation of an American invasion is rank hypocrisy of the worst kind!
Given how symbolic a lot of the participation was, were there any nations that officially approved, but didn’t participate in any way?
Not for all 193, no, just the ones who expressed an official stance.
I’ll take one of these for every one hundred nations with special interests taking a position:
These are views based upon morality and they hold more weight than the views of the war-mongering minions who agreed at the time that Bush was justified to remove Saddam Hussein from power because Saddam was evil and had acted defiant in the past.
In that case, this should settle the matter for you:
Bolding mine.
I look forward to your next post, which will surely switch your moral backing from Crimean separatists to supporters of a unified Ukraine.
Which is why we have to stick with “we don’t know”.
because you must snip complete paragraphs into pieces and cannot respond in whole thoughts it will take longer to respond. But I will respond to this petty distraction of pickiness and false assumptons and misreading as time permits.
There are far more interesting sub-plot to the story than the quibbling arena right now where you want to spend your time.
So ultimately you think that the Russian intervention was justified in order to protect Russian nationals? I could see that if all Russia did was to provide security but the annexation or Crimea actually goes against the goal of providing security. If the Russian nationals throughout Ukraine were in danger from anti-Russian people then logically the last thing Russia should do is to inflame the passions of those anti-Russian people. The annexation of Crimea does the exact opposite, it not only inflames any already present anti-Russian feelings but also creates new feelings of hostility as now Ukrainians have just witnessed Russia cut out part of their country.
Also do you not think that it is somewhat extreme to annex part of a sovereign state in order to avoid a temporary security issue, which was not currently a problem as Russian troops had flooded Crimea?
With respect “supporters of a unified Ukraine” sounds a lot like “supporters of the Holy Roman Empire” or “supporters of Großdeutschland”. Russian Crimea is a done deal and the whole concept of a “unified Ukraine” can be kicked over to St Jude.
Fair enough, but if you want to go that route, we can’t assume that the 100-11 vote was that substantial, because of the 58 abstentions.
When each paragraph consists of multiple absurd positions (I mean, come on …North freakin’ Korea is a disreputable state because they voted no on this resolution? I dare you to make less sense!), what am I to do but address them all?
Frankly, I don’t know what you expect. When I advance substantial arguments for my positions, you either write variations on the idea that I have no right to tell the people involved (Egyptians, Crimeans, Russians, Putin himself) what to do (a restriction that, oddly, you don’t apply to yourself), or just ignore my points altogether. When I address factual inaccuracies and fabrications in your arguments, you dismiss them as nitpicks.
As a result, it doesn’t appear to be possible to debate in any form with you.
Why? We know how each nation voted, or not. We know that most voted in favor. Even if the 58 abstentions were really “against”, it’s still a significant majority voting in favor. And I’m not so concerned about whether it is “substantial” or not, as that is a subjective term.
We never had that for Iraq. We just don’t know.
My point is that on around February 28 the Ukraine, due to the vacuum created in Kiev this was this chain of events that rapidly occurred to fill it:
[ul]The Central government of Ukraine lost Constitutional, security and military control of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. [/ul]
[ul]
[li]The Crimea leaders and vast majority of legislators declared notice that it was the intent of Crimea to separate from Ukraine[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Once that rebellious anit Ukraine act was committed there was no turning back. The only way to implement independence at that time was to seek military backing from Russia.[/li][/ul]
And they got it. And Crimea has joined the Russian Federation and the world will learn how to deal with it.
Meanwhile Ukraine has so many internal problems that they best get down to business with cleaning up their own act. And don’t blow up the pipelines. Nobody in the world wants that.
And Obama indicated weeks ago that Crimea was going to Russia and yesterday has confirmed that diplomatic negotiations are underway in direct talks between the US and Russia and coercing Russia to give up Crimea now is not part of the talks.
They had their vote in the UN and now ‘life goes on’… Crimea, Russia is going on the maps and it is ‘defacto recognized’ as part of Russia. Once WWIV (Russia Georgia Olympic War of 2008 was WWIII potential) gets ratcheted down. life goes on. Republican vote again to repeal ObamaCare and complaining how the Press doesn’t investigate Benghazi…
No news here… the quibbling has already begun by a few.
But there wasn’t much of a vacuum in Kiev. After the old government fell an interim one sprang up with a promise of elections in May. At the end of this process Ukraine would have a government elected by it’s people again. Besides, Crimea would still be fine even if there was a temporary vacuum in Kiev due to the overwhelming presence of Russian troops throughout Crimea.
What you seem to be suggesting is that certain people in Crimea saw this as an excuse to join Russia. If this is the case then they are completely in the wrong because they didn’t give the Crimean people a fair say about their future as the questions on the referendum did not include staying with Ukraine, it was set up and conducted in too short a time for a proper debate to be had, it was conducted while the country was occupied by Russian troops and there was a massive one sided propaganda war taking place. Finally polls prior to this showed that the Crimean people did not want to join Russia.
If security wasn’t an issue and the annexation did not give the Crimean people a free and fair say on their future, and by recent previous polls actually went against what the people wished, why do you think it was an acceptable thing to do?
They didn’t lose control. The leadership changed.
Under Russian occupation of the government buildings.
So they implemented independence by joining the Russian federation. Does that make sense even to you?
I think some Ukrainian nationalists might want that. I bet they do it if Russia threatens more Ukraine territory.