Couldn’t have had anything to do with the autocratic way the president was acting, or the fact that he, you know, ordered the military and police to shoot protesters? Naw, must have just been the wrong result for the US.
Yeah, that’s it…the RedFury wrap the flag thingy. That will certainly be a win! You made the statement, if you don’t want to back it up, well, that’s your look out. I’m not going to do the work for you, especially since it will entail going through a bunch of loopy CT sites to ‘prove’ your assertion.
LOL. As in overthrowing the elected government. I’ve loved the spin on this all year; a beautiful, real-time textbook example of western imperialism going through the gears fully aided by mainstream media.
I don’t know you but in three posts you’ve twice tried to turn an interesting topic around so it’s about the poster and not the substantive issue. It doesn’t work, it avoids the issue and, to be honest, adding smiley-type figures doesn’t change any of that.
Unlike your wrapping the flag about me comment, right? I DO know you, and I think it’s going to be pretty obvious to everyone (excluding perhaps Red and NFBW) that you are avoiding a request to backup your assertions with cites and instead focusing on me and on muddying the waters. Am I mocking you for that? Absolutely I am.
There was nothing wrong, as far as I know it was a fair and free election. But Yanukovich was later overthrown by mass protests, so the only logical alternative is to re-start the system and have a new election. What else do you suggest?
I heartily dislike this notion that appears to be floating around that “democracy” is merely a matter of correctly undertaking the ritual of voting, and that having won this contest, the leader has inalienable legitimacy, winner-take-all style.
In my opinion, democracy is much more than that - it is a recognition that. ultimately, being ruled requires the consent of the governed, meaning popular legitimacy. Voting is merely the best and most accepted means to test popular legitimacy, far preferable to (say) having an angry mob storm the palace every few years.
It is not, however, a replacement or substitute for actual popular legitimacy. Ultimately, if the goverment truly fails to abide by the wishes of the people - if its head (say) sells out the country to a foreign interest, throws political opponents in jail on trumped-up pretexts, ‘disappears’ journalists, intimidates the organs of state to such an extent that they cannot legally move against him, has protesters againt all of this shot, and becomes so unpopular while doing this that the army refuses to enforce his orders to crush protests with armed force - then, in such unusual circumstances, there is really no choice for the population but to rise up, and for politicians to recognize this fact with impeachment.
That is the basic fact that underlies democracy - that ultimately the government must be in the people’s interest, and not the other way around.
In this case, the fact that the impeached head of state is actively calling on the armed forces of another, enemy state to invade and re-impose him simply underlies that he has by no means absorbed this lesson, and demonstrates that his impeachment was fully justified in the first place. Leadership of a country on such a bases - imposed by enemy troops - can never have legitimacy.
Some of your discourse makes plenty of sense but it does not make sense if you were in Crimea when with one million of your fellow Crimeans voted for Yanukovich to be President for five years not until the mob and rioters decide he must go.
Crimeans decided they had enough and Putin backed them up.
Evidently nothing at all, since the elected members of Parliament remain in office. Perhaps you are unaware of that?
That said, Malthus has put it very well. “Democracy” is not a simple thing; it’s a complex, layered concept, and one many people really do not understand. It seems a lot of folks have a child’s understanding of democracy and, in the case of this thread, seem to think “democracy” is like a game, where you win an election and that’s it. In fairness, many people also have a reversed, and yet equally childish, understanding of democracy, whereby “Democracy” means “My side gets what it wants” and a constitutionally valid result that doesn’t deliver what they want is somehow undemocratic. I’ve actually heard supposedly intelligent people who went and cast a vote in an election say they were “disenfranchised” because their candidate did not win.
Winning an election does not give a person a ticket to rule no matter what. Hell, it’s happened in the United States; Richard Nixon was re-elected in a landslide in 1972, and was forced out of office all the same, for perfectly good reasons. Whatever his success in the last Presidential election, Viktor Yakunovyich has surrendered a great deal, if not all, of his legitimacy to hold his office, by abandoning his country in a time of crisis that he was largely responsible for starting. He was then voted out of office by a democratically elected legislature, whose vote was, at least in part, based on the fact he had fled his post. Running away from your own people is a fairly major strike against his legitimacy; the legislature voting him out is another. His was also kicked out of his own political party - a party that, I must point out, is the political party of choice of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Yakunovyich is also wanted for murder.
Now, you can make several points in favour of his legitimacy; he won the election in 2010 and he at least hasn’t been CONVICTED of murder. But on the whole the case against him is rather overwhelming. I cannot imagine an equivalent scenario in which an equivalent person in any democratic country would not be thrown from office.
The escalation of violence from Yanukovich’s election to Ukraine’s loss of the Crimean Peninsula did not start with Yanukovich selling out the country to a foreign interest. What is your basis for such a claim?
Yatz would be incorrect to claim that Ukraine shares European Values if his version of ‘Ukrainians’ include the one million Crimeans that voted for democratic institutions to uphold the law. Apparently that is not one of the European values that Yatz has in mind.
Thanks for the link. It shows Yanukovuch was acting in the interests of Ukraine not foreign interests. In his mind as President of Ukraine the EU was enticing Ukraine but fucking Ukraine in critical negotiations.
Is it your position that Yanukovich sold out to a foreign interest in November 2013? Just want verification of the point you are attempting to make. If so what foreign interest was that?
The car he was traveling was shot at. Do you realize that you are sympathizing with the mob that attempted to assassinated a duly elected head of state?
That the violence started shortly after he sold out. To who? Well, let’s see…wasn’t Outer Mongolia. Nope. Wasn’t Iceland. Hm…who could it have been??? scratches head in puzzlementation Man, this is really hard. Let’s go back and look at the cite, maybe there will be illumination in there…let’s see:
Hm…Moscow. I’ve heard of that. It’s a city, right? Where is it? Damn, you are right, this IS really hard! Well, let’s do a Google search…hm, Moscow, Moscow…oh, here it is. It seems to be the capital of a country. I wonder if the cite means he renounced proposed trade and association talks with the EU to do a 180 and revive talks with the city? Naw…you know, looking at this a bit deeper, Moscow seems to be the capital of…hey, it’s Russia! :eek: <—shocked face. Damn, didn’t see THAT coming… I bet what the cite was saying is that the protests against him were because he did a 180 and decided to sell out to Russia!
Man, I’m sure glad you brought this up…it’s possible that some folks in this thread weren’t able to make that vast leap of deductive reasoning! As always, you are quite an asset to the board!
