Evidence of American mercenaries fighting in the Ukraine ?

a reply to: all2human

If Russia doesn't recognize the government as legitimate , an invading force it is not.

When you send armed troops into a sovereign nation with the intent on annexing part of it, makes it an invading force.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Could say the same about a Government taken by force, without due process intent on taking territory.

originally posted by: DJW001
Please indicate where I have ever blamed all the world's problems on Russia.
a reply to: intrptr

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You said the US is defending Japan from Russia. The truth is the US occupies Japan. How you twist that to "defending" Japan is what I mean about blaming Russia.

By the way, we nuked and firebombed Japanese cities.

a reply to: intrptr

The US does not occupy Japan. Our forces are there via bilateral treaties. If Japan wants us out we leave. As an example of that look at the Philippines. We did not invade - we left.

Why is it so difficult for you and others to accept the fact that nations host US troops by treaty. Is it jealously? The fact nations would prefer to host US troops over Russian?

does this mean Russia occupied Kazakhstan? Belarus? Syria?

Russia has a military presence in those locations. Are those countries occupied by Russia?

As for you last comment -
Brush up on the history of WWII. You will find that Japanese forces murdered -

World War II casualties - wiki
All sources listed at the bottom of the page.

Included with total war dead are victims of Japanese war crimes.
R. J. Rummel estimates the civilian victims of Japanese democide at 5,424,000. Detailed by country:

China 3,695,000;
Indochina 457,000;
Korea 378,000;
Indonesia 375,000;
Malaya-Singapore 283,000;
Philippines 119,000,
Burma 60,000 and
Pacific Islands 57,000.

Rummel estimates POW deaths in Japanese custody at 539,000 Detailed by country:
China 400,000;
French Indochina 30,000;
Philippines 27,300;
Netherlands 25,000;
France 14,000;
UK 13,000;
UK-Colonies 11,000;
US 10,700;
Australia 8,000.

[10][113]Werner Gruhl estimates the civilian deaths at 20,365,000. Detailed by country:
China 12,392,000;
Indochina 1,500,000;
Korea 500,000;
Dutch East Indies 3,000,000;
Malaya and Singapore 100,000;
Philippines 500,000;
Burma 170,000;

Forced laborers in Southeast Asia 70,000, 30,000 interned non-Asian civilians;
Timor 60,000;
Thailand and Pacific Islands 60,000.[114]

Gruhl estimates POW deaths in Japanese captivity at 331,584. Detailed by country:
China 270,000;
Netherlands 8,500; U.K. 12,433;
Canada 273;
Philippines 20,000;
Australia 7,412;
New Zealand 31;
and the United States 12,935.[114]

Out of 60,000 Indian Army POWs taken at the Fall of Singapore, 11,000 died in captivity.[115]

There were 14,657 deaths among the total 130,895 western civilians interned by the Japanese due to famine and disease.[116][117]

You guys need to get over the blind hatred towards America. It prevents people from actually educating themselves on the topic resulting in claims that are tilted.

One of the conditions during Japans surrender in ww2 was that it would not develop an offensive military,it was left with little options having ongoing American military presence on it's soil, it signed the mutual treaty for protection as it was stripped of that right
Japan and America have a love-hate relationship, to no surprise.
If America would stop bombing Muslims that comprise 2 billion people on our planet and cease meddling with the affairs of sovereign nations popularity would most certainly go up.

a reply to: all2human

and the ability to change their constitution is and always has been at the sole discretion of the Japanese people.

Uproar as Japan ends ban on troops fighting abroad

The US does not occupy Japan.

Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan - Wiki

* - 1st signed in 1952.
* - amended in 1960.

Why are those dates significant? The treaty was only in effect for 10 years. After such time either party could pull out. To date neither party has done so. Should Japan decide to do so the US would honor the agreement, just like we did when the Philippines asked the US to leave.

If you guys are going to make claims is it to much to ask that you research before making claims that are untrue and that are only made to serve an agenda.

1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement In 2012 an agreement was made to close and relocate the US base on Okinawa to a new area with a sparse population. The Japanese central government as well as the island government approved the move.


The US does not bomb Muslims - we bomb terrorists who are cowards who defile Islam in a failing effort to justify their murder. You of all people should know there is a difference between Muslims and terrorists.

a reply to: intrptr

You said the US is defending Japan from Russia. The truth is the US occupies Japan. How you twist that to "defending" Japan is what I mean about blaming Russia.

By the way, we nuked and firebombed Japanese cities.

No, that's not blaming Russia for all the evils of the world. If you knew anything at all about history, you would know that Japan and the Russian Empire fought a bitter war at the turn of the last century, which Japan won, contributing to the malaise that led to the Russian Revolution. There have been border disputes ever since.

And, no, Russia has never nuked Japanese cities.

a reply to: DJW001

To add to your position -

Last I saw Japan and the USSR / Russia never ended the second World War. The 2 countries are technically still at war and that status is because of the Kuril islands.

Secondly the number of air intercepts by Japan reference Russian and Chinese incursions has skyrocketed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The US does not occupy Japan. Our forces are there via bilateral treaties.

Are you aware of what you just said. The US does not occupy… our forces occupy? I always muse when someone mind melds themselves within one sentence.

Not that they had much choice. They had to surrender or else… " they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." --President Truman

The US military has occupied that country ever since WWII.

"Treaty", lol. US "treats" the world like crap all the while claiming it has "permission" to do so.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Secondly the number of air intercepts by Japan reference Russian and Chinese incursions has skyrocketed.

Incursions… skyrockets?

How many bases do the Russians and Chinese have on Japanese soil, again?

Now do the Star wars thing… "These are not the US military bases you are seeing, they are mirages, you may go on about your business".

By the way, the people of Japan resent the US occupation, despite whatever you claim is a legal pretext...

a reply to: intrptr

What part of my post confused you? I ask because your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I stated. Your comment about Russian or Chinese bases in japan makes no sense.

As for the star wars comment maybe you should concentrate on the topic since you seem to be lost / confused as to what we are talking about.

a reply to: intrptr

just because you do not like the US does not make treaties between the US and other nations "occupations". The facts don't support the claim made about Japanese occupation.

If you could support the claim you would have. Instead you deflected and ranted while offering nothing to support your claim.

please try again.

a reply to: all2human

Could say the same about a Government taken by force, without due process intent on taking territory.

What force, the military didn't take the president by force nor did anyone force Yanukovych to leave Ukraine...he left on his own free will because he was running from impeachment.

You may want to research why he was being impeached...it's called corruption. You can only take so much from the people before they want you out.

without due process intent on taking territory.

Exactly like what Russia did with Crimea...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

"I was forced to leave the Ukraine under the immediate threat to my life and the life of my family,"
Yanukovych
www.abc.net.au...

Immediately the Parliament took over control because of his absence, elections were a mere month away but because of his refusal to sign with the EU he was overthrown, more accurately run out of town,the Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route
Due process, i think not.
www.ponarseurasia.org...
www.rferl.org...

a reply to: all2human

Yet there was no threat.

He was lawfully impeached by the legitimate government of Ukraine which Russia certified in 2012 when the elections were held.

The first impeachment vote met constitutional requirements.

I think Yanukovych knew he would be impeached since his own party disowned him and so he fled. Under the Ukraine constitution he resigned his position by doing that. Their constitution requires a new election within 90 days.

Secondly the agreement only stated he would call for early elections - At the time no date was ever set.

Further Ukraine issued an arrest warrant for him for his actions while in office and Interpol accepted the warrant and issued the red notice. Since Russia is a member of Interpol they would be required to act however I don't see them complying.

Please take some time and actually research the events that removed Yanukovych from office. I think you will find out the information being reported by Russia is not accurate.

Yanukovych: 'I Did Not Flee' - NBC news

Ukraine crisis: "I didn't flee" says Yanukovych as he calls for Russia to act

His own words -

“I did not flee,” he said. “I will return to Ukraine as soon as my security can be guaranteed.”

If he really was still the President then Russia would not have ignored him. Putin refused to meet with him. Churkin stated at a UNSC meeting that Yanukovych sent a request to Putin to intervene. Ironically Churkin never did produce any documents.

If Russia was really that concerned then there would have been no reason to annex Crimea. Putin took advantage of Yanukovych and used him for a land grab.

a reply to: Xcathdra
His own words -
"I was forced to leave the Ukraine under the immediate threat to my life and the life of my family,"
Yanukovych
Difference: fleeing and forced to leave..

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcathdra
His own words -
"I was forced to leave the Ukraine under the immediate threat to my life and the life of my family,"
Yanukovych

Then apparently he is a liar since he claimed both. It further demonstrates how corrupt he was.

a reply to: Xcathdra
The corruption lies with the Parliament that took over power while the president was running for his life.
The vote to remove Yanukovych didn't follow constitutional procedures. there are four ways a sitting president may leave office between elections: resignation, incapacitation, death, and impeachment. None of the first three happened.Therfore all actions by the Parliament afterwards could be considered illegal.
Due process not followed.
These points are the crux of why Russia considers the current Government of Ukraine illegitimate.
Your confusing facts with fiction.

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcathdra
The corruption lies with the Parliament that took over power while the president was running for his life.

Lol your gonna go down swinging eh.

Ignoring facts don't invalidate them. Since he claimed he did not flee and that he did flee casts doubt on everything coming out of his mouth.

While Ukraine is clamping down on the corruption Putin gives a buddy of his to build a bridge to Crimea.