Julia wants referendum on NATO accession simultaneously with parliamentary elections on Oct 26

a reply to: all2human

Article V of the NATO charter had never been invoked until 9/11 and it has not been invoked since. Turkey and Poland have invoked article IV - consultations with the alliance when issues occur that can impact member nations.

NATO is a defensive alliance and does not support members who act outside its guidelines in their conflicts. This is evident with Greece and Turkey.


If you are going to make claims could you at least spend some time researching them to make sure they are correct? Thus far your statement is not supported by facts.

The UN charter allows for a nation to defend itself, up to and including defensive alliances. Nothing in the UN charter can supersede the right of a nation to self defense.

a reply to: Xcathdra
where in my post did I say they invoked articled 5 ?
As for them becoming an offensive organization, overstepping their Defensive mandate often illegally (according to the NATO/UN charter see: Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Africa, Pakistan
Syria, Russia.
And for Something to chew on:
Kosovo: NATO bombardment was illegal under international law: www.wsws.org...
Afghanistan: NATO invasion of Afghanistan was not legal under international law. This is due to the fact that the UN resolutions that were drafted after the 9/11 attacks did not expressly permit an aggressive approach in tackling international terrorism. Furthermore, Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter were not adhered towww.e-ir.info...
Libya: link not needed
Pakistan: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: all2human
NATO is known to change its own rules illegally or dubious at best to fulfill it's imperialistic agenda
since Kosovo, NATO has decided it is within their right to overstep art 5

next question?

a reply to: Xcathdra

This is quite original.

NATO is a defensive alliance and does not support members who act outside its guidelines in their conflicts.

What NATO did in Libya was far from being an defensive alliance the same goes what occurred in Kosovo. NATO acted as an military force for the fighters in Libya.

While the UN act called for the defensive of civilians not militarily overthrow of an government. But hey dont let facts hurt you.

Nothing in the UN charter can supersede the right of a nation to self defense.

And the UN allowed America's aggression towards Iraq and other countries as defense right? or how desperate your government is still trying to win a war in Syria?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Ukrainian and Tatar citizens didnt take part in the so called refferendum.

I find this part from you rather hilarious if you had known a little more on the Ukrankian history you would know more but since your getting news from Kiev post and western news outlets i am not surprised by your reply.

You keep claiming that you know something relevant about Ukrainian history that no-one else does, but you never explain what that is. What aspect of Ukrainian history explains why Tatars and Ukrainian speaking people would want to boycott Putin's sham referendum? Why do you consider this to be so amusing?

Russia is on a downward slope economically

Nope, people like you have being predicting the fall of the Russian economy since the 90s even long before Putin came into office.

Do you actually follow the Western media you condemn? It had always been predicted that the Russian economy would improve after the collapse of Communism and, after a brief period of chaos while it re-oriented itself, it did. These improvements had nothing to do with Putin's "leadership," but rather the influx of foreign investment capital and the management of capital by the private sector.

As for the Russian economy being on a downward spiral, the figures speak for themselves. When Putin violated the new constitution by grabbing a third term as President, the recently created class of well to do urban professionals lost faith in Russia's future. Many protested, many fled the country. Foreign investment capital began to dry up over fears that the tenuous rule of law was disappearing. International partnerships began to fray. Putin seized assets that had been privatized earlier. This chart is all you need to see:

Source.

Russia opens up to the West aswell....to the benefit, finally, of the Russian people.

You really made me laugh with that statement West and benefits care to name those benefits?

1. Renewed foreign investment.
2. International co-operation in areas of mutual self-interest, eg; counter-terrorism.
3. Liberalized trade regime, allowing more Russian exports.
4. Broader markets for Russian cultural products, eg; music and cinema.
5. Increased tourism.
6. Decreased tolerance of government corruption as international norms become expected.
7. Increasing demand for government transparency.

Your turn: please explain the benefits of further isolation.

I come from a mixed family so Ukrankian blood run through my veins. Your points on what kind of benefits west offers is short listed and also for the tourism part.


5. Increased tourism.
Indeed Increased tourism for the wealthy, if a family or wealthy are earning up to 20,000 to 30,000 American dollars only then you can have at least a nice earned well deserved vacation.

Including if you are an CEO of a business run office.

3. Liberalized trade regime, allowing more Russian exports.

Japan and few other western Europeans has Liberalized trade regime and that has not helped there economy. As for the Russian exports.

The Liberalized trade hasn't worked well in Africa.

2. International co-operation in areas of mutual self-interest, eg; counter-terrorism.

Indeed by going to war with in the middle east and being more like America's right win government when it comes to International co-operation in areas of mutual self-interest.

When you stated its for mutual self-interest. Its actual the opposite.


6. Decreased tolerance of government corruption as international norms become expected.
Decreased tolerance of government corruption? corruption in the west is growing i could post some examples.

4. Broader markets for Russian cultural products, eg; music and cinema

Your wrong on that part.


I noticed you missed a few points.


8. Increased unemployment.
9.Partisanship with the Gulf Regime States.
10.Increased Wages.
11.No longer having an independent news media, News media must pro western in ideology.
12.Education system failures.
13.Health care system, unfair.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Ukrainian and Tatar citizens didnt take part in the so called refferendum.

I find this part from you rather hilarious if you had known a little more on the Ukrankian history you would know more but since your getting news from Kiev post and western news outlets i am not surprised by your reply.

You keep claiming that you know something relevant about Ukrainian history that no-one else does, but you never explain what that is. What aspect of Ukrainian history explains why Tatars and Ukrainian speaking people would want to boycott Putin's sham referendum? Why do you consider this to be so amusing?

Russia is on a downward slope economically

Nope, people like you have being predicting the fall of the Russian economy since the 90s even long before Putin came into office.

Do you actually follow the Western media you condemn? It had always been predicted that the Russian economy would improve after the collapse of Communism and, after a brief period of chaos while it re-oriented itself, it did. These improvements had nothing to do with Putin's "leadership," but rather the influx of foreign investment capital and the management of capital by the private sector.

As for the Russian economy being on a downward spiral, the figures speak for themselves. When Putin violated the new constitution by grabbing a third term as President, the recently created class of well to do urban professionals lost faith in Russia's future. Many protested, many fled the country. Foreign investment capital began to dry up over fears that the tenuous rule of law was disappearing. International partnerships began to fray. Putin seized assets that had been privatized earlier. This chart is all you need to see:

Source.

Russia opens up to the West aswell....to the benefit, finally, of the Russian people.

You really made me laugh with that statement West and benefits care to name those benefits?

1. Renewed foreign investment.
2. International co-operation in areas of mutual self-interest, eg; counter-terrorism.
3. Liberalized trade regime, allowing more Russian exports.
4. Broader markets for Russian cultural products, eg; music and cinema.
5. Increased tourism.
6. Decreased tolerance of government corruption as international norms become expected.
7. Increasing demand for government transparency.

Your turn: please explain the benefits of further isolation.

Do you actually follow the Western media you condemn? It had always been predicted that the Russian economy would improve after the collapse of Communism

Isnt this the same Western media that have being predicting the downfall of Assad for every month in 2011 and 2012? sorry if i am bringing up Assad in this discussion but i have to.

Since your using the western media pov, the same western media that have being claiming that Europe has already recovered but in reality they haven't?


When Putin violated the new constitution by grabbing a third term as President
If Putin wasn't in charge we wouldn't be having this discussion about either Russia Or Syria nor Ukraine by now Syria would have a newly Saudi puppet and Ukraine would be an NATO member with NATO troops closing in on Russia's door step.


Your turn: please explain the benefits of further .

Russia is not the one thats being isolated, its your country and the west that fears America's influence winding down in the world just like it did in Brazil recently.

You know whose isolated? North Korea. They have nothing compare that living standards to that of Russia.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Isnt this the same Western media that have being predicting the downfall of Assad for every month in 2011 and 2012? sorry if i am bringing up Assad in this discussion but i have to.

Since your using the western media pov, the same western media that have being claiming that Europe has already recovered but in reality they haven't?

Huh? Recovered from what? Be specific. Use data.

When Putin violated the new constitution by grabbing a third term as President

If Putin wasn't in charge we wouldn't be having this discussion about either Russia Or Syria nor Ukraine by now Syria would have a newly Saudi puppet and Ukraine would be an NATO member with NATO troops closing in on Russia's door step.

Explain.

Your turn: please explain the benefits of further .

Russia is not the one thats being isolated, its your country and the west that fears America's influence winding down in the world just like it did in Brazil recently.

That is a complete non-sequiter.

You know whose isolated? North Korea. They have nothing compare that living standards to that of Russia.

And unless Putin is removed from office, Russia will be the next North Korea.

a reply to: DJW001

Huh? Recovered from what? Be specific. Use data.

Why should i? after all are getting the facts from the news media ?

Explain.

Your own statement.

And unless Putin is removed from office, Russia will be the next North Korea.

What you basically stated is that you want an Pro western in Russia. And no Russia isn't North Korea.

a reply to: DJW001

Although do go on and mention just how great the tourism has being for the wealthy at least everyone knows that the ordinary class cant take a vacation on the same level as there boss.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter

What NATO did in Libya was far from being an defensive alliance the same goes what occurred in Kosovo. NATO acted as an military force for the fighters in Libya.

You just don't bother to do research do you?

2011 Military intervention in Libya - wiki

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

Individual national commands -

The resolution was taken in response to events during the Libyan Civil War,[18] and military operations began, with American and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[19] the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force[20] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.[21] Air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles by French jets were since confirmed.[22][23] The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States.[24]

From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[25][26][27][28][29] expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector.

An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[30][31] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[32][33][34] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 06:00 UTC (08:00 local time). NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011.

Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[35] but on 27 October, the Security Council voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[36]

The actual combat roles were under the direction of the individual governments. The no fly and weapons embargo was under NATO control.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
While the UN act called for the defensive of civilians not militarily overthrow of an government. But hey dont let facts hurt you.

As the top of the Libyan NCA he is a valid military target.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter

And the UN allowed America's aggression towards Iraq and other countries as defense right? or how desperate your government is still trying to win a war in Syria?

The US is not at war in Syria and simply repeating it as many times as you can still does not make it true.

Secondly you need to read ALL UN resolutions dealing with Iraq SINCE the end of the 1st Gulf war. Then brush up here -
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Are you done driving the thread off topic?

originally posted by: all2human
Kosovo: NATO bombardment was illegal under international law: www.wsws.org...

Have you got a more credible source than the World Socialist Web Site, a website that says it is "The World Socialist Web Site is published by the International Committee of the Fourth International, the leadership of the world socialist movement, the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938".

In fact, have you got a link to the UK's admission the whole trick was illegal because I have spent the last 15 minutes looking through the publications from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and have found nothing.

Regards

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: all2human
Kosovo: NATO bombardment was illegal under international law: www.wsws.org...

Have you got a more credible source than the World Socialist Web Site, a website that says it is "The World Socialist Web Site is published by the International Committee of the Fourth International, the leadership of the world socialist movement, the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938".

In fact, have you got a link to the UK's admission the whole trick was illegal because I have spent the last 15 minutes looking through the publications from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and have found nothing.

Regards

Tell me how is UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, NATO and CNN is more reliable again?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not surprised at all that you would defend the UN and Libyan intervention. Or the fact that you keep using wikipedia as a source, wikipedia is very reablie.

As the top of the Libyan NCA he is a valid military target.

Once they changed the objectives.

The US is not at war in Syria and simply repeating it as many times as you can still does not make it true.

The fact that America and Britain already started the air strikes it is, America doesn't care about other countries sovereignty.

Rather then citing posting links from wiki i am quite sure you could have done better then insulting me or my username.

With your buddies in a group.




I am quite sure some of you must already miss medvedev.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
Tell me how is UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, NATO and CNN is more reliable again?

No, I'll let your vast intellect work it out when you have sifted through all the publically available reports, notes and minutes. If someone says something, then it's up to them to prove it. Prove it to me that the FCO stated the Kosovo intervention by NATO was illegal, as stated by all2human. You may not like it, but most government business in the UK is open access.

Regards

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
I am not surprised at all that you would defend the UN and Libyan intervention. Or the fact that you keep using wikipedia as a source, wikipedia is very reablie.

Defending? How about correcting the false information.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
Once they changed the objectives.

No, it occurred once the UN resolution was passed.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
The fact that America and Britain already started the air strikes it is, America doesn't care about other countries sovereignty.

The US nor Britain are at arr with Syria. Constantly stating it over and over still does not make it true. this would be an example of you making claims you cannot support.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
Rather then citing posting links from wiki i am quite sure you could have done better then insulting me or my username.

I have never insluted your user name. As for insulting you you certainly know how to dish it but you apparently cannot take your own medicine.

What you appear to be doing is trying to make it look like we are singling you out so you can complain to the mods in hopes of getting us banned.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
With your buddies in a group.

Yeah stop sending me U2U's whining about this. They are there own and are not multiple accounts of me. I have one account and this is it. So, again, STOP making claims that are in fact lies.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
I am quite sure some of you must already miss medvedev.

You mean Putin's mini me...

Who cares?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Do you see a Giant golden statue of Putin in Crimea?

Do you see a giant golden statue of Clinton in Kosovo? Let's make a deal: I bet there will be a statute of Putin in Crimea before there is a statue of Bill Clinton anywhere in the former Yugoslavian states. Loser agrees never to post on ATS again. Deal?

In early November 2009, Clinton attended the unveiling of an 11-foot bronze statue of himself along a boulevard in Kosovo that bears his name. Thousands of ethnic Albanians attended the ceremony for Clinton, who is regarded as a national hero for launching NATO's campaign to drive Yugoslavian troops out of Kosovo in 1999. The statue depicts Clinton with his left arm raised holding a portfolio bearing his name and the date when that air campaign began — March 24, 1999. "I never expected that anywhere, someone would make such a big statue of me," said Clinton, who was making his first trip to Kosovo since it declared its independence from Serbia in 2008.

statues of presidents


I guess you lose ??

It's not a gold one...but a statue none the less.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

That's not giant, either. This is giant:



www.rferl.org...

Too bad Agent-USA-Supporter didn't agree to the deal; he would have had one less person around to expose his BS.