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

reply to post by DJW001


Crimea is an autonomous state, they get to decide their own affairs... this is one of them, which head do they prefer to defer more to, moscow or kiev?

Their choice, not yours, not Ukraines, not anyone but theirs.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by DJW001

 

Crimea is an autonomous state, they get to decide their own affairs... this is one of them, which head do they prefer to defer more to, moscow or kiev?

Their choice, not yours, not Ukraines, not anyone but theirs.

They are not constitutionally allowed to determine foreign policy. It certainly is not your choice, and especially not Russia's. Personally, the only reason I object to Crimea seceding is because Russia is behind it. If Putin only had faith that the Crimean people really did want to join the Russian Federation, he could have done nothing and got his way.

reply to post by DJW001

They are not constitutionally allowed to determine foreign policy.

They have the right to self determination... no one can take that away as it is a natural right... in their history no one wants to let them decide for themselves and have self determination... not the ottoman empire, not the EU states, not Russia when Crimea was given as a "gift" and not the United States government now...

They are saying, this is what we want... that is called "self determination" everyone has that right... most just have to stand up and take it for themselves... I commend them for that.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by DJW001

 

They are not constitutionally allowed to determine foreign policy.

They have the right to self determination... no one can take that away as it is a natural right... in their history no one wants to let them decide for themselves and have self determination... not the ottoman empire, not the EU states, not Russia when Crimea was given as a "gift" and not the United States government now...

They are saying, this is what we want... that is called "self determination" everyone has that right... most just have to stand up and take it for themselves... I commend them for that.

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

It is not self determination if it is imposed from outside. It does not matter if the outside force originates in America or Russia.

reply to post by DJW001


It's not being "imposed" they are voting on it...

The imposition being attempted is other countries and people such as yourself saying Crimea has no right to self determination - no right of vote or popular consensus for what they want - and these other countries and people are becoming more than just a little pushy over it.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by DJW001

 

It's not being "imposed" they are voting on it...

The imposition being attempted is other countries and people such as yourself saying Crimea has no right to self determination - no right of vote or popular consensus for what they want - and these other countries and people are becoming more than just a little pushy over it.

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

So you think it is entirely coincidence that armed men in ski masks are hanging around in the streets?

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I agree with you up to a point.

There has to be some kind of rules put on voting for self-determination otherwise you wind up with a society that is no better than crude rule by popular opinion polling.

For example, if it were that simple always, the US would be in a perpetual state of chaos, assuming it would even still exist. We would never have the same states from year to year. California might be six different states now. Parts of Colorado, Kansas and Western Nebraska might have joined together to form a new state this past six months or so, and those arrangements would only be as permanent as the next election and vote.

Now, I'm not saying that mechanisms do not need to exist for change to occur through referendum. They do. They absolutely do, but those mechanisms need to be difficult so that when the conditions are satisfied everyone can be very sure that it is because the majority of those involved are on board otherwise you risk civil unrest or worse, civil war, and sometimes you have that even if you do have the assent of the majority making it even more important the majority agrees.

reply to post by ketsuko


Allow me to add that it is imperative for Putin to allow the UN and various NGOs to monitor the referendum. If there is the least question of legitimacy, he will find that the nations he assumed were on his side will condemn him. He cannot count on India's support because they would not want to set a precedent that would allow a Pakistan based separatist government to call for a referendum in Kashmir. He cannot count on Chinese support because they would fear a US, Japan or even Turkey or Kazakhstan backed referendum in Tibet or Xianjiang!

I think America supports self-determination when it suits them and Russia does the same. Putin is an unlikely ally of self-determination as would be the leader of any large nation or empire. In most large nations there are usually groups who would like to separate and Russia has one of the most militant groups in the Chechen's.

Putin appears to be using past and present American policy for his own advantage to make the US look hypocritical rather than having any real beliefs in self-determination. Can America on one hand champion self-determination for say Tibet while on the other deny it to Crimea? It's funny watching China and the US trying to figure how to respond to all this given they both have to respond differently to how they normally would with the US normally championing self-determination and China usually siding with Russia in disputes with the west.

It's actually a good move from a purely strategic point of view as it takes away one of the Americas most used weapons for dividing up competitor nations or at least makes them look hypocritical if they use it and it tests the strength of their relationship with China. There were probably Russian politicians/military who believed China would have their back in any conflict and I don't think Putin was one of them. This will help clarify the situation for anyone who believed that. When push comes to shove it's always good to know who will have your back before the fight breaks out.

VLADIMIR PUTIN:

First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment:
this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power.

Does anyone question this? Nobody does.

There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych, through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries – Poland, Germany and France – and in the presence of my representative (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an agreement with the opposition on February 21. I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact)

Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition’s demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators. Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied.

He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they immediately occupied the President’s residence and the Government building – all that instead of acting on the agreement.

Only constitutional means should be used on the post-Soviet space, where political structures are still very fragile, and economies are still weak. Going beyond the constitutional field would always be a cardinal mistake in such a situation.

Incidentally, I understand those people on Maidan, though I do not support this kind of turnover. I understand the people on Maidan who are calling for radical change rather than some cosmetic remodelling of power. Why are they demanding this? Because they have grown used to seeing one set of thieves being replaced by another. Moreover, the people in the regions do not even participate in forming their own regional governments.

There was a period in this country when the President appointed regional leaders, but then the local legislative authorities had to approve them, while in Ukraine they are appointed directly.

We have now moved on to elections, while they are nowhere near this.

And they began appointing all sorts of oligarchs and billionaires to govern the eastern regions of the country. No wonder the people do not accept this, no wonder they think that as a result of dishonest privatisation (just as many people think here as well) people have become rich and now they also have been brought to power.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

List of U.S. executive branch czars
Summary table - Number of czars per administration
President's name Party In office Number of
czar titles Number of
appointees Appointees not
confirmed by Senate
Franklin Roosevelt D 1933–1945 11 19 17
Harry Truman D 1945–1953 6 6 5
Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1961 1 1 0
Lyndon Johnson D 1963–1969 3 3 1
Richard Nixon R 1969–1974 3 5 5
Gerald Ford R 1974–1977 2 2 2
Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 2 3 2
Ronald Reagan R 1981–1989 1 1 1
George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 2 3 0
Bill Clinton D 1993–2001 8 11 7
George W. Bush R 2001–2009 33 49 28
Barack Obama D 2009– 38 44 35

en.wikipedia.org...
wow: russians making democracy and the american zcar
sad sad lol

well thats why nazis HATE Putin...actions speak louder then words...
it also really shows what all you chickin hocks are seeking to yoke your neighbors with

to you nazi supporters i see why you don't seem inclined to reference...

DJW001
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Allow me to add that it is imperative for Putin to allow the UN and various NGOs to monitor the referendum. If there is the least question of legitimacy,

the usa should go first

Chimp hacks voting machine...*facepalm*...now that's democracy 'merkin style

man national socialists make me laff if it wasn't so sad

Ballot-fraud convictions shed light on Obama’s ’08 campaign

dailycaller.com...

obama was never even legally elected...
thats the nazi way

counterpunch seems to have compiled an accurate non putin veiw of the progression of events

Chronology of the Ukrainian Coup

Listening to the US media, even the most diligent news junkie would find it difficult to know that the U.S. State Department played not only a vital role in the violence and chaos underway in Ukraine but was also complicit in creating the coup that ousted democratically elected President Viktor Yanuyovch. Given the Russian Parliament’s approval of Putin’s request for military troops to be moved into Crimea, Americans uninformed about the history of that region might also be persuaded that Russia is the aggressor and the sole perpetrator of the violence.

Let’s be clear about what is at stake here: NATO missiles on the adjacent Ukraine border aimed directly at Russia would make that country extremely vulnerable to Western goals and destabilization efforts while threatening Russia’s only water access to its naval fleet in Crimean peninsula, the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East – and not the least of which would allow world economic dominance by the US, the European Union, the IMF, World Bank and international financiers all of whom had already brought staggering suffering to millions around the globe.

The fact is that democracy was not a demand on the streets of Kiev. The current record of events indicates that protests of civil dissatisfaction were organized by reactionary neo-Nazi forces intent on fomenting a major domestic crisis ousting Ukraine’s legitimate government. As events continue to spiral out of control, here is the chronology of how the coup was engineered to install a government more favorable to EU and US goals.....

www.counterpunch.org...

reply to post by Danbones


Counterpunch does not offer a single fact to support its "chronology." It does not even list dates! That's not a chronology, that is what Sayonara Jupiter calls a "narrative."

DJW001
reply to post by Danbones

 

Counterpunch does not offer a single fact to support its "chronology." It does not even list dates! That's not a chronology, that is what Sayonara Jupiter calls a "narrative."

April 11, 2011 –
A Kiev Post article entitled “Ukraine Hopes to Get $1.5 Billion from IMF in June” states that the loan is dependent on pension cuts while “maintaining cooperation with the IMF, since it influences the country’s interaction with other international financial institutions and private investors” and further that the “attraction of $850 million from the World Bank in 2011, depended on cooperation with the IMF.” Well, that about says it all – if Ukraine played ball. then the loan money would pour in.

www.counterpunch.org...

ummm the first paragraph of the counterpunch chronology
do you have some form of cognitive difficulties...need glasses...its too early in the day?
take a break, have a coffee...relax, rub your eyes, stretch...wake up a little

you seem to be doing so good in the presenting of facts too

reply to post by Danbones

First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment:
this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power.

Or a revolution. As a Russian, you used to think revolution was something to be glorified.

Does anyone question this? Nobody does.

We only question whether it was a justified and positive revolution. It was.

There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?

Because a corrupt leader impoverished the country and betrayed it to a foreign power. As well you know.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych, through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries – Poland, Germany and France – and in the presence of my representative (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an agreement with the opposition on February 21. I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact)

Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition’s demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators. Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied.

If Yanukovych handed over power, all the rest is moot. He is now the ex-president and should play no further role in events. As for your insistence that he did not order troops to shoot at protesters, if the protesters were brutal fascist thugs, it would have been his duty to order the police to fire on them. Which is he guilty of? Murdering innocents or dereliction of duty? Try to keep your lies consistent, Vlad.

He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they immediately occupied the President’s residence and the Government building – all that instead of acting on the agreement.

What event in Kharkov could possibly have been more important than the peaceful and orderly transition of power in the capital?

Only constitutional means should be used on the post-Soviet space, where political structures are still very fragile, and economies are still weak. Going beyond the constitutional field would always be a cardinal mistake in such a situation.

The parliament voted to change the Constitution, which is within its power. You had shock troops in the streets of Sevastopol before getting authorization from the Duma. Was that constitutional in the post-Soviet space?

Incidentally, I understand those people on Maidan, though I do not support this kind of turnover. I understand the people on Maidan who are calling for radical change rather than some cosmetic remodelling of power. Why are they demanding this? Because they have grown used to seeing one set of thieves being replaced by another. Moreover, the people in the regions do not even participate in forming their own regional governments.

You understand quite well, because you are afraid that your pack of thieves may be replaced just as easily.

There was a period in this country when the President appointed regional leaders, but then the local legislative authorities had to approve them, while in Ukraine they are appointed directly.

You still appoint governors in Russia. If Ukraine changes their Constitution to permit governors to be elected, they will have left you behind in the nineteenth century.

We have now moved on to elections, while they are nowhere near this.

Again, any system that allows one man to retain ultimate power for decades cannot possibly be having free elections.

And they began appointing all sorts of oligarchs and billionaires to govern the eastern regions of the country. No wonder the people do not accept this, no wonder they think that as a result of dishonest privatisation (just as many people think here as well) people have become rich and now they also have been brought to power.

The nice thing about a bottom up revolution is that the rich either take their money and leave, or learn how to play by the new rules so they can keep their heads on their shoulders. Something tells me that the oligarchs who are assuming government (I won't deny it) will suddenly start founding hospitals, clinics and endowing universities in aa conspicuous way.

Danbones

DJW001
reply to post by Danbones

 

Counterpunch does not offer a single fact to support its "chronology." It does not even list dates! That's not a chronology, that is what Sayonara Jupiter calls a "narrative."

April 11, 2011 –
A Kiev Post article entitled “Ukraine Hopes to Get $1.5 Billion from IMF in June” states that the loan is dependent on pension cuts while “maintaining cooperation with the IMF, since it influences the country’s interaction with other international financial institutions and private investors” and further that the “attraction of $850 million from the World Bank in 2011, depended on cooperation with the IMF.” Well, that about says it all – if Ukraine played ball. then the loan money would pour in.

www.counterpunch.org...

ummm the first paragraph of the counterpunch chronology
do you have some form of cognitive difficulties...need glasses...its too early in the day?
take a break, have a coffee...relax, rub your eyes, stretch...wake up a little

you seem to be doing so good in the presenting of facts too

edit on Tueam3b20143America/Chicago41 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on Tueam3b20143America/Chicago03 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on Tueam3b20143America/Chicago40 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

My bad, I thought you had posted the blog post in full.

reply to post by DJW001


no problem
lol
we all do it from time to time...

the opposition violated the deal after the expresident carried out his side of the deal as agreed
so
null and voiid

Danbones
the usa should go first

We did.... During the 2012 Presidential elections.

you missed the post re vote fraud convictions on the original democratic ballots in o8, LOL, usually you don't get to run for a second term from jail...considering they were convicted

and the video of the monkey hacking the diebold voting machine...maybe it was posted on your thread
ill repost it here if you would like



just a quik search produced this from 2012...this is NOT DEMOCRACY even going back to Bush2, there were the convictions for vote fraud in critical places there too

As a result of Tuesday's presidential election, several reports are coming in of voter fraud by the Democratic Party, particularly in key states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida where in St. Lucie County, the unofficial vote count showed 175,554 registered voters but 247,713 vote cards were cast coming to 141.10% .

At one particular polling place in the same county, they recorded 158.85% voter turnout which turned out to be the highest in the county.

From a website, "Barack Obama Voter Fraud 2012", an individual has been compiling reports of voter fraud by the Democrats and posting them with the intention to eventually submit them to Governor Mitt Romney, who lost to President Obama

www.examiner.com...