So in fact, South Korea’s military is not presently under U.S. control, would only be, possibly, under U.S. control if the war with North Korea resumes, and that is of course if South Korea decides that’s okay (as one sees immediately upon reading the entire treaty.) Surely you do not believe the U.S. contingent in South Korea, a tiny fraction the size of the South Korean armed forces, is exerting any sort of control over South Korea?
[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
South Korea is an appendage of the empire. Thought that was common knowledge
[/QUOTE]
Certainly…it’s on par with the common knowledge that the Jews control everything, that the US government brought down the Twin Towers (and fired a missile into the Pentagon) and other such things.
Basically, the US does not in fact control the South Korean military (or any other aspect of South Korea, which is a sovereign, independent nation). In a time of invasion, a US commander will act as overall allied commander of forces on the Korean peninsula…similar to how during WWII, Dwight D. Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander. This didn’t mean that the British (or other allied military’s) were under US control.
Short, sweet, and thoroughly debunked. But don’t let the facts stop you.
One of the last roles my FIL had before he retired from the US Army was working with the South Korean military, negotiating the sale of weapons to SK, that sort of thing, and, boy howdy, he would have LOVED for them to be under the control of the US military. They may have been allies but they were a nightmare to work with, according to his stories.
Can you point to some law, whether Crimean or Ukrainian, some legal basis that allows Crimea to conduct this referendum?
[QUOTE=RedFury]
O’Reilly? Pray tell, where?
[/QUOTE]
Considering some of the sources you’ve used in your various link vomit, I’d say O’Reilly (presumably Bill from Fox) would actually be fairly credible.
There’s NO legal Governemnt in Ukraine at the moment, for as much as Obama & the US love to recognize it, it is clearly the result of an illegal coup.
Issues Under Fire: Obama’s Rush to Legitimize Ukraine’s Fledgling Usurpers
Thus the Crimeans have every common-sensical right to refuse to recognize the authority of an illegal coallition of far-right agitators and oligachs that currently form a Gov in which they have no representation and is already acting against the interests of the very people of Ukraine – by working with the IMF, the US & EU in accepting deals that would condemn Ukranians to austerity measures (read: misery) that pales to the ones they are currently suffering.
In short, the Ukranian Constitution ATM is no different than a used roll of toilet paper. As is “International Law” when the West considers it to be an obstacle to its goals.
If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
Cheers.
Suggestion: keep your day job.
Ok. Is there ANY lawful basis to the referendum at all? Ukrainian law or Crimean?
Oh, of course, of course. Could you point it out to me though? Since, you know, that’s pretty much what happened I am curious how it was debunked
I agree it’s not the same. You see, I am in the unfortunate position of not believing either side’s bullshit on this issue. And pretending a mob taking over the governement building the day of the vote is of no importance is kind of bullshit.
Well, I don’t know if they were “behind it” but there is no doubt a lot of behind the scenes conversation happened between Western governments and the opposition. It isn’t all Jewish conspiracy theories to wonder if they did some pushing.
And sorry for the multi-split quote answer, which I usually hate seeing and doing.
So basically you’re just trawling the internet for anyone saying anything that remotely agrees with your side - including a piece about a couple of Ukranian-Americans in Rhode Island - while dismissing everything that doesn’t as “biased”. Yes, that seems like a rigorous and sound approach. I can’t see why anyone would question your credibility.
I also like how you keep claiming that the Crimean referendum is entirely in response to the change of government in Kiev and has nothing to do with their Russian overlords (did I say “overlords”? I meant “protectors”) threatening them at gunpoint. I’m sure it will all be entirely free and fair.
Sorry - that last was aimed at RedFury.
Bah.
The members that supported the government fled, the opposition either was emboldened to go further or worried about not going with the mob. Either way, that’s improper influence. That can be the only explanation for the sudden change of plans. Why do you think they suddenly turned their back on the interim government vote of the day before?
Because Yanukovich ran away, was nowhere to be found, and refused to sign the law?
That is hilarious. Seriously, hilarious. “Oh, he ran away when the mob stormed the building. No choice but to impeach him instead.” lol.
Which building that Yanukovich was in did the mob storm?
I don’t know. It’s plausible that someone in the military told him “We aren’t stopping them this time” and he fled beforehand. It all happened pretty rapidly. So rapidly that it doesn’t make a difference which building he was in.
To avoid a charge of hypocrisy, the West should have publicly pressed the opposition to stick with their interim government agreement. Realpolitik-wise, not sure how smart that would have been. Both sides would have probably said “No way” for different reasons.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Oh, of course, of course. Could you point it out to me though? Since, you know, that’s pretty much what happened I am curious how it was debunked
[/QUOTE]
To much trouble for me to wade back through all of the crap to find the posts that addressed it, to be honest, so I’ll just retract the claim it was debunked and just say that there is dispute about your (and others) narrative about just how the ‘coup’ went down (and several requests in the other thread on this subject for someone to back up that narrative which I don’t believe anyone bothered to take up, so I don’t feel so bad about failing to find similar cites in this or the other tread to meet your own request).
Being skeptical is fine, though I note with some irony that you have swallowed the ‘pretending a mob taking over the governement building the day of the vote’ without rigorous skepticism. The thing is, from the WESTS perspective, I’m missing the hypocrisy here. Even if your narrative is true and thugs overthrew the government then sat patting their clubs while the Ukraine parliament voted nervously for whatever the thugs wanted, it’s STILL not on par with what’s going on in the Crimea (and the Ukraine) wrt Russian troops doing similar things. Why? Well, because The West™ didn’t get the thugs to pressure the Ukraine parliament into doing anything…that was internal. While the Russians are an outside agency and they ARE applying pressure via military means to the situation. Unless you do believe that The West™ was doing the same thing that Russia is doing, I’m unsure how you can agree with the cries by the OP of hypocrisy. Could you explain how that works for you?
And, even if you are 100% correct, you equate ‘behind the scenes conversations’ with naked force wrt supposed Western hypocrisy??