I’m sure in his mind Obama isn’t part of that. He seems to be able to rationalize nearly anything, or spin anything so that it comes out saying whatever it is he thinks his position.
It is, of course, a warnable offense to refer to another poster as a troll or that he is ‘trolling’. So I’m VERY glad that’s not what you meant.
And the rest of you? Lay off the personal comments or anything else that smacks of insult or deprecation. More becomes warnings.
That is false. The White House has not issued a statement about the constitutionality if the rushed impeachment of President of Yanukovich. If they do and I think they are wrong I will say so.
That wasn’t the question. Obama clearly thinks the interim government is legitimate, which you claim it is not. Is he wrong?
Dude…seriously. They MET WITH THE INTERIM PM THIS WEEK. They obviously disagree with you that the parliament and PM are illegitimate thugs, or that they have broken their own constitution and rendered it ‘defunct’.
What have so written that is utter bulliocks? If you have a fact-based case then lets see it?
I’d go with this, as the last ridiculous thing you brought up:
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I think Putin sees the utter lawlessness in the West’s land grab of The Ukraine as time to concede the politics of Kiev to the West. Putin does not care as long as his base and the ethnic Russians are protected. And he wants no Ukrainain military assets on the Crimean Peninsula. Crimea has potentential to become a flourishing Indeoendent Nation when its separation from the undemocratic turmoil in Kiev is concluded.
If it is done without bloodshed more power to them. That should be the standard for the world to recognize. Not the shit that happened in Kiev.
[/QUOTE]
Well, calling the Kiev government overthrow a Western land grab is clearly bollocks. No matter how much the West aided or encouraged the overthrow, the land is not now under Western control. Simultaneously, you refuse to admit that the presence of Russian troops all over Crimea constitute Russian control of the territory. How you can hold such a bizarre stance is beyond me.
To paraphrase Dr. Evil…you see, CarnalK, we aren’t so different, you and I. 
Well, I don’t think I ever disagreed with you on the illegitimacy of Russia’s actions, just on the legitimacy of Yanukovich’s ouster.
No, he recognizes the new government of Ukraine as legitimate as a formality of geo-strategic and domestic political necessity. He is not required to base that decision on the constitutional procedures within Ukraine on how that new government was formed. So he has chosen to ignore that detail which is his perogitive. Putin has decided not to ignore that constitutional detail and he is addressing the procedure as it is actually written. Thus we have a stand-off over legitimacy of the new government with one side citing the actual Constitution of The Ukraine and the other choosing to ignore it.
I have presented facts relative to both sides of the issue and many here do not have an interest in knowing as much facts that can be gathered. No one has refuted Putin’s claims of what was in Ukraine’s Constitution and I doubt now that anyone will.
You do understand that it is not the “perogitive” (ROTFLMAO) or a foreign country to decide on the Constitutionality of another country’s internal matters, right?
So you think that is ridiculous but can you articulate where and why?
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW. “I think Putin sees the utter lawlessness in the West’s land grab of The Ukraine as time to concede the politics of Kiev to the West.”
(Do you disagree that Putin sees it that way?)
“Putin does not care as long as his base and the ethnic Russians are protected.”
(What is ridiculous about that assessment? )
“And he wants no Ukrainain military assets on the Crimean Peninsula.”
(Do you think he wants more Ukrainian assets in Crimea?)
“Crimea has potentential to become a flourishing Indeoendent Nation when its separation from the undemocratic turmoil in Kiev is concluded.”
(That’s my opinion - what is ridiculous about that?)
“If it is done without bloodshed more power to them. That should be the standard for the world to recognize. Not the shit that happened in Kiev.”)
(Really are you in favor of the bloodshed in Kiev that led to this crisis and do you want more? What is ridiculous about seeking peaceful ways to resolve things?)
I have agreed all along that the overthrow of Yanukovich wasn’t legitimate but to jump from that to supporting a Russian takeover is ludicrous. Russia had plenty of economic and political methods to make their disapproval heard. There was no obvious threat to the lives of ethnic Russians in Crimea that could justify a military intervention. That you think this is a model for the world to follow is going beyond belief.
Terr has asked me if understand that it is not the prerogative of a foreign country to decide on the Constitutionality of another country’s internal matters, right?
I have stated in response to John Mace that Obama recognizes the new government of Ukraine as legitimate as a formality of geo-strategic and domestic political necessity. And that he is not required to base that decision on the constitutional procedures within Ukraine on how that new government was formed. So he has chosen to ignore that detail which is his prerogative.
I do not see the relationship between what I wrote and what Terr is asking. I think he found a misspelled word and wanted to use it in a question. Perhaps I’m wrong but if so could we have some elaboration on what Terr’s question has to do with what I’ve written?
Wow, you spelled “prerogative” correctly. Don’t let anyone say you can’t learn anything.
It is not the prerogative of any country to decide on the Constitutionality of any internal action of another country. The only prerogative the country has is to recognize or not recognize the government of another country. But (and note this carefully) whether it recognizes or does not recognize the government of another country as legitimate, invading that country is not its “prerogative”. Get it?
It seems that my topic was closed, and I was accused of russian propaganda.
Well lads, I won’t deny that my video is a propaganda. That’s not a question.
The thing is that American propaganda go far more advanced than my little translated video.
I don’t know how much money were spent on this movie for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvds2AIiWLA
But my movie is just an amature made with tight budget video that I just wanted to show people, and yeah, I’ve spread this one on a couple of forums.
And for those of you who deny that there are nazis in the Kiev.
Do you have any internet? Do you have google? Do you have goggle search?
Maybe before accusing someone you should search for some information, for the Maidan for example? Let me help you.
http://s30.postimg.org/oewnfsctd/8553_60011.jpg
http://www.opendemocracy.net/files/Bankova%20-%2001%20-%20Version%202.jpg
http://img.rt.com/files/opinionpost/21/e8/80/00/ukrainian-nationalists-attacked-police.si.jpg
http://ukrpravda.ua/sites/default/files/styles/img_650x650/public/svastika_na_evromaydane_0.jpg?itok=Xlz9H59i
In fact the Crimea is a autonomous republic and there were always russian troops in there. The agreement between Ukraine and Russia is permitting Russia to attend this area, and they were always there actually. This is absolutely legal. But all the mass media started this nonsence about the invasions.
Russia didn’t invaded Ukraine. nuff said.
And here’s my video, for those of you who didn’t see it.
If you agree with Putin that the outing of Yanukovich was illegitimate then it must mean two things. Yanukovich was still the acting constitutionally elected president of the Ukraine and had the authority to invite Putin to protect the ethnic Russians in Crimea - a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine.
Putin on his own sees a major military uncertainty as to who is commanding the Ukraine Army and Navy with the illegal overthrow of the elected Commander in Chief. Putin has in his agreements with Ukraine the authority to protect its military assets in Crimea with up to 25,000 Russian troops permitted on the ground in Crimea.
It has not been explained how 25,000 troops can protect military assets while all the time remaining on the base.
Putin can see the lawless behavior in Kiev leaving a great deal of uncertainty on who is commanding the Ukraine anti aircraft installations on Crimea for example. The uncertainty and illegitimate behavior in Kiev does translate into a threat to the Russian Fleet stationed in Crimea. Putin decides to exercise his right to defend his Fleet in the way he did.
The original unconstitutional actions taken by the protest supporting legislature in Kiev sparked the ripple effect of what transpired later. There is a cause and effect here and they are not inseparable.
The agreement was not for the Russians to be everywhere in the Crimea. The agreement was not for the Russians to pretend to be Ukrainian natives while driving around Russian military cars and carrying Russian military weapons. The agreement was not for the Russians to seize Ukrainian buildings.
It’s an invasion. Nuff said, no takebacks, close thread, winning!, end of line.
The lease agreement has specific conditions:
The U.S. has a base in Cuba. If American troops left the base and occupied the rest of Cuba, would that be an invasion? Of course.