Obama Comes Out Against Self-Determination — Paul CRoberts. Will this cause BLOWBACK? what then?

reply to post by ketsuko


good point
there is such a thing as violation of national sovereignty which is not international law per se...
but might makes right so back to square one
i suspect as far as the nwo is concerned
mostly we are ALL just sioux balkan palistinean crimean ukrainians

What stupid report.

Ukraine has provision in its constitution for change to the constitution - Crimea has its own section of the constitution, and there is provision for changing the constitution........so if Crimea had followed that procedure then there would be little issue.

It is the UNILATERAL proposal that is the problem - not the idea of self determination itself.

Aloysius the Gaul
What stupid report.

Ukraine has provision in its constitution for change to the constitution - Crimea has its own section of the constitution, and there is provision for changing the constitution........so if Crimea had followed that procedure then there would be little issue.

It is the UNILATERAL proposal that is the problem - not the idea of self determination itself.

if the Ukrainian government had followed procedure maybe they would have
also the reports about the snipers and neo nazis and israelis operating together probably didn't help much
of course the mention aof all the illegal regime changes the us has done and is doing probably through the crimeans off a little too...
That bit about the only democratic leader being the one the us and nato and the imf install is probably bugging the crimeans a little too..thats spreading something but it sure doesn't smell like democracy

Danbones
reply to post by ketsuko

 

good point
there is such a thing as violation of national sovereignty which is not international law per se...
but might makes right so back to square one
i suspect as far as the nwo is concerned
mostly we are ALL just sioux balkan palistinean crimean ukrainians

The world community should be more or less self-policing without needing the idea of International Law. It's in no nation's best interests to let another nation get too aggressive.

I've been increasingly uneasy with where the US has been going in recent decades, but at the same time, I find Islamic radicalism to be a pervasive and widespread threat that will need to be addressed somehow. I just don't think the world is ready to admit that the military approach is the correct way to go about it yet, especially as this is an enemy that doesn't own one nation or flag to itself, but hides behind many.

And we can ignore it all we want, but it will not ignore us. It's the theocratic boogeyman that a lot of people claim to fear. I keep hoping that Muslims will get tired of it and undergo their own religious reformation.

Danbones

DJW001
reply to post by Danbones

 

Please post a tape recording of this conversation so we can confirm the language Obama used.

Edit to add: I move that if the OP cannot provide a recording of the conversation, this thread be moved to [HOAX!].

edit on 9-3-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

maybe the mods are waiting for you to prove its a hoax

Simple: how was the person who wrote the article privy to the conversation? Was he listening in? Is it even possible for him to listen in? No, what he has done is taken the comments that have been published on record and distorted them. He has taken the President's stand that a referendum in Crimea would not be legitimate, which, under the circumstances is clearly true, and twisted into a statement that self-determination in general is not legitimate. It is a febrile attempt at manipulation, and stated as if the writer of this "editorial" had witnessed something he cannot possibly have witnessed. Deliberately making statements that imply that someone was a witness to something that they could not possibly have witnessed is the very definition of a hoax. QED.

If you want to debate the merits of the OPs opinion, start a new thread that does not attempt to mislead.

Danbones

Aloysius the Gaul
What stupid report.

Ukraine has provision in its constitution for change to the constitution - Crimea has its own section of the constitution, and there is provision for changing the constitution........so if Crimea had followed that procedure then there would be little issue.

It is the UNILATERAL proposal that is the problem - not the idea of self determination itself.

if the Ukrainian government had followed procedure maybe they would have
also the reports about the snipers and neo nazis and israelis operating together

I'm sure they gave those reports all eth attention they deserved......

probably didn't help much
of course the mention aof all the illegal regime changes the us has done and is doing probably through the crimeans off a little too...

Except ther ewas no illegal regime change.

The Ukrainian Parliament is the same one now as before the President abandoned his country rather than sign the February 21 Accords.

Russia makes much of Ukraine needing to accept eth Feb 21 Accords - but that is exactly what they did - the Parliament passed the legislation and it was awaiting the President's signature - but he ran away instead.

That bit about the only democratic leader being the one the us and nato and the imf install is probably bugging the crimeans a little too..thats spreading something but it sure doesn't smell like democracy

well then I guess they have no leader, since "the US and NATO" didn't install anyone - the Ukraine Parliament did....and it is an electe4d body....including all the members of the former President's party......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


ummm no

What Russia has done, in sending troops into Crimea, is in fact a minor action in terms of international law compared to what the US has done just over the past two decades alone. It’s not as though Ukraine was a functioning nation, after all. Its elected government had just been violently overthrown, and its president hounded out of the country by demonstrations that had included the storming of the presidential palace, and the armed occupation of the parliament building. Under such circumstances, for Russia to have stood idly by while its own Russian nationals as well as ethnic Russians in Crimea, a majority Russian region that until 1954 was a part of Russia, just across the border, were threatened by what is essentially a mob-run government based in Kiev, would have been irresponsible. Moreover, the autonomous regional government in Crimea had actually apparently sought Russian protection from the central “government” in Ukraine.

Of course there’s also the matter of the US role — overt and covert — in helping to fund and organize the mobs who ousted the elected government of Ukraine. That too was a violation of international law. For years now, the US has, through its National Endowment for Democracy, US AID, and other government and quasi-government bodies, been funneling money to anti-government groups in Ukraine (as it did also in Egypt and Russia itself, and as it is doing now in Venezuela and other countries whose leaders it opposes). The leaked tape of the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing how to staff the new government of Ukraine after the anticipated collapse of the elected government shows how deeply the US was involved in the undermining of the government of Ukraine. Again, this interference in another country’s political system is a horrendous violation of international law.

www.counterpunch.org...

reply to post by DJW001


well it looks like by now the mods think your hoax is a hoax which it is

Danbones
reply to post by DJW001

 

well it looks like by now the mods think your hoax is a hoax which it is

The Mods also did not put this notorious thread in [HOAX!] either. As I said, you can discuss the merits of the Presidents actions or inactions without reference to this pathetic hoax.

reply to post by Danbones


Excellent thread... I am in a lot of pain today and having a hard time sitting up for very long, but I will try to give my thoughts on the OP as the day wears on, I am just marking it now for this purpose.

DJW001

Danbones
reply to post by DJW001

 

well it looks like by now the mods think your hoax is a hoax which it is

The Mods also did not put this notorious thread in [HOAX!] either. As I said, you can discuss the merits of the Presidents actions or inactions without reference to this pathetic hoax.

edit on 10-3-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

something tells me thats the last thing you want to do lol

Danbones

DJW001

Danbones
reply to post by DJW001

 

well it looks like by now the mods think your hoax is a hoax which it is

The Mods also did not put this notorious thread in [HOAX!] either. As I said, you can discuss the merits of the Presidents actions or inactions without reference to this pathetic hoax.

edit on 10-3-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

something tells me thats the last thing you want to do lol

Okay. Let's discuss it. I cannot find any credible source that says that Obama is opposed to self determination. In fact, he makes it clear that it is the imposition of a pro-Russian government in Crimea that violates self determination. Prove me wrong.

reply to post by Danbones

What Russia has done, in sending troops into Crimea, is in fact a minor action in terms of international law compared to what the US has done just over the past two decades alone.

Of course: it is perfectly okay for me to rob you because other people commit murder.

reply to post by DJW001


This is a case of the murder accusing the robber and trying to take the moral high ground. What is bothering people, is that a criminal cannot take any moral high ground.

The case with Crimea is a Russian problem, and it is between them and the Crimeans to be honest, the United States has no say in this, and has no moral high ground to stand upon.

Lets do a hypothetical scenario here... Let us say that one of the biggest ports in the United States was in California, and California decided the wanted to succeed from the United States, so the US said sure, succeed if you like, but we keep full access to the port...

Now let us then say there was a bunch of unrest in California, and it was starting to look like China and Iran was involved and there was the strong possibility that China and Iran are trying to overthrow the new government of California to install a government that is strongly against the United States... and the US might then loose full access to the port if allowed to continue in the manner it was going...

And this being the doorstep of the United States the US has a huge stake in what was happening to the citizens of California, because anything that happens there can affect the US also quite easily, simply because of proximity..

So, would you say the US would be wrong in trying to quell the unrest in California? Or would China and Iran be right in stirring things up?

This hypothetical situation is a reality for the Russians and Crimeans, and the pot stirrers are the EU and the US... yet, the US is trying to take some kind of moral high ground where we have no ground at all... none of this is our business... this is between Russia and Crimea because it is them who this affects, and Russia has just as much at stake here as the Crimean people. So, if things calm down and Russia has continued access to the port, I am sure Russia will go back to letting the Crimeans do as they please with their government...

As I reported on February 12, “Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine,”

www.paulcraigroberts.org...

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a rabid Russophobe and neoconservative warmonger, told the National Press Club last December that the US has “invested” $5 billion in organizing a network to achieve US goals in Ukraine in order to give “Ukraine the future it deserves.”
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Nuland is the Obama regime official who was caught red-handed naming the members of the Ukrainian government Washington intends to impose on the Ukrainian people once the paid protesters have unseated the current elected and independent government.

www.paulcraigroberts.org...

the last thing you want to do is discuss the facts
thats obvious

DJW001
reply to post by Danbones

 

What Russia has done, in sending troops into Crimea, is in fact a minor action in terms of international law compared to what the US has done just over the past two decades alone.

Of course: it is perfectly okay for me to rob you because other people commit murder.

? that makes no sense at all

after granada and iraq and libya and syria and the shaw of iran and vietnam and pol pot
and after the banker schiff installed the bolshevics and ordered the murder of the czar as an investment...
after the bolshevics murdered millions of ukranians...
and now the installation of the local nazi party who are working with israelis like the dancing israelis of 911 fame...

wow

reply to post by OpinionatedB

This is a case of the murder accusing the robber and trying to take the moral high ground. What is bothering people, is that a criminal cannot take any moral high ground.

President Obama did not invade Iraq.

The case with Crimea is a Russian problem, and it is between them and the Crimeans to be honest, the United States has no say in this, and has no moral high ground to stand upon.

Russia has those bases due to a treaty with Ukraine, not Crimea. It is with the Ukrainians Russia needs to deal, not the self declared Crimean government. Any objective third party can see this, no matter how much blood you think they have on their hands.

Lets do a hypothetical scenario here... Let us say that one of the biggest ports in the United States was in California, and California decided the wanted to succeed from the United States, so the US said sure, succeed if you like, but we keep full access to the port...

This is a poor analogy. California is a member of the United States. Ukraine is not a member of the Russian Federation. That is precisely the problem: Russia is acting as though Ukraine belongs to them.

Now let us then say there was a bunch of unrest in California, and it was starting to look like China and Iran was involved and there was the strong possibility that China and Iran are trying to overthrow the new government of California to install a government that is strongly against the United States... and the US might then loose full access to the port if allowed to continue in the manner it was going...

Let us make the situation closer to the reality on the ground: Let us say that there is civil unrest in Britain, and that the revolutionary government wants the United States bases closed. Would the United States forces be justified in taking over the county government buildings?

And this being the doorstep of the United States the US has a huge stake in what was happening to the citizens of California, because anything that happens there can affect the US also quite easily, simply because of proximity..

Once again, California is a part of the United States, Ukraine is not a part of Russia.

So, would you say the US would be wrong in trying to quell the unrest in California? Or would China and Iran be right in stirring things up?

In your hypothetical the United States would be justified in preventing California from seceding because California is legally bound to the United States. Ukraine is not legally bound to Russia.

This hypothetical situation is a reality for the Russians and Crimeans, and the pot stirrers are the EU and the US... yet, the US is trying to take some kind of moral high ground where we have no ground at all... none of this is our business... this is between Russia and Crimea because it is them who this affects, and Russia has just as much at stake here as the Crimean people. So, if things calm down and Russia has continued access to the port, I am sure Russia will go back to letting the Crimeans do as they please with their government...

Your hypothetical situation is a false analogy, and only demonstrates how blind Russia's supporters are. Ukraine is not part of Russia. Russia has no right to determine Ukraine's future.

Danbones

As I reported on February 12, “Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine,”

www.paulcraigroberts.org...

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a rabid Russophobe and neoconservative warmonger, told the National Press Club last December that the US has “invested” $5 billion in organizing a network to achieve US goals in Ukraine in order to give “Ukraine the future it deserves.”
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Nuland is the Obama regime official who was caught red-handed naming the members of the Ukrainian government Washington intends to impose on the Ukrainian people once the paid protesters have unseated the current elected and independent government.

www.paulcraigroberts.org...

the last thing you want to do is discuss the facts
thats obvious

Where does Nuland say that President Obama told Putin that the United states was opposed to self-determination? This thread is supposedly about that telephone call. Obviously, you are the one who refuses to look at the facts.

reply to post by DJW001


The Ukraine was a part of Russia until it succeeded... Basically until the break-up of the soviet union...

The same would be true in a hypothetical situation if one of the states in the US decided to succeed from the US.

This was how the Crimeans felt just a few years ago...

Crimea, like the eastern part of Ukraine, is strongly pro-Russian. Ethnic Russians comprise about 60 percent of the population. In a 2009 poll by the Razumkov Centre, a Ukrainian think tank, nearly a third of the Crimean respondents said they wanted their region to secede from Ukraine and become part of Russia.Source: National Geographic

That feeling is growing much stronger now with their finances being what they have been in the Ukraine...So much so that 4 days ago they voted to succeed from the Ukraine and join Russia as an autonomous state within Russia and the referendum is being held on the 16th of March, 2014.

Crimea's parliament voted to split from Ukraine and join Russia Thursday and its Moscow-backed government set a national referendum on the issue within 10 days.NBC Source

But Crimea really is part of Ukraine, right?

Yes, but only since 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, signed the region over to Ukraine as a gesture of goodwill. The gift was of limited consequence; Russia and Ukraine were both ruled from Moscow then. But after the fall of Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union, it mattered deeply, and the shift away from Moscow was complete. Officially known as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, it has its own parliament and capital, Simferopol, but takes its orders from Kiev.

Source: National Geographic

None of this is our business, it is only the business of the Crimeans and the Russians...Russian people comprising 60% of Crimea anyway...

reply to post by OpinionatedB

None of this is our business, it is only the business of the Crimeans and the Russians...Russian people comprising 60% of Crimea anyway...

It is no-one's business but Ukraine's. Russia does not even enter into it. If a Ukrainian citizen wishes to become a Russian, they are free to move across the border.