Ukrainian Crisis

[Asilian]

I fudging know what irredentism is. I support my country's claim of Sabah, Spratlys and would like to ignite a claim on Guam, Palau and Nauru.

1) What is your country? And what justifies irredentism?
2) Why should the US do something as idiotic as give the Southwest to Mexico? / What gives Mexico the right to take back the American Southwest?
3) How does any of this justify Russia's actions in the Crimea?

i can answer 2, we had no right to take it in the first place...

[Purpelia]

I guess it's just me being a communist. I mean sure, there ain't no Soviet Union any more and Stalin is dead. But a strong leader at the helm of Russia is about as good as the world can scrounge up at this point. So better something than nothing.

There is nothing communist at all about the most unequal country in the world.

Sure, but at least they have a sort of strong leader. And that's like 1/3 of the package. The full package being communism + dictatorship + strong leader.

[Regnum Dominae]

1) What is your country? And what justifies irredentism?
2) Why should the US do something as idiotic as give the Southwest to Mexico? / What gives Mexico the right to take back the American Southwest?
3) How does any of this justify Russia's actions in the Crimea?

i can answer 2, we had no right to take it in the first place...

So what? The mistakes of the past do not justify further wrongdoings.

[Arglorand]

I only know that this gives a really good precedent for Lithuania defending Lithuanian-speakers in London.

[Gravlen]

Well let's think. Russia decides to go full retard and invade the Ukraine for no apparent reason like Bush did with I-Rack. Ukraine declares war and attempts to resist. Russia gets to Kiev. Poland shits itself and intervenes to save the incumbent Ukrainian government, thus invoking several NATO clauses and bringing the US into direct and possible open conflict with Russia.

You can see where we're going with this, right?

Article 5. When someone invokes this clause the ball will roll.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _17120.htm

There has to be an armed attack against Poland before they can invoke article 5 though. If Poland unilaterally intervenes and is hit on Ukrainian soil, I don't think they can claim to have been subjected to an armed attack against them.

But it doesn't take much. One Russian attack that misses the mark and hits Polish soil...

[Asilian]

i can answer 2, we had no right to take it in the first place...

So what? The mistakes of the past do not justify further wrongdoings.

thats true, but what would be the wrong doing in giving back mexico its territory?

[Asigna]

1) What is your country? And what justifies irredentism?

My country is the Philippines, our justification is that the Philippines used to own Sabah until the British north Borneo company borrowed the land from the Sultanate of Sulu (the original owner of Sabah). Now Sabah's incorporation into Malaysia is purely an accident, the British did not know whom to give Sabah back to, they gave it instead to Malaya whom later became Malaysia. Sukarno was a hero trying to get that back for the Philippines via konfrontasi.

2) Why should the US do something as idiotic as give the Southwest to Mexico? / What gives Mexico the right to take back the American Southwest?

If it was the choice of Mexico to give the southwest to the US then it would not be rational for them to regret their previous choice. I don't know much about North American history.

3) How does any of this justify Russia's actions in the Crimea?

No it doesn't. Russia doesn't support irredentism, rather, Crimean independence solely circulated on Russian predominance there. All to create the republic of Crimea.

[Gravlen]

Shit, you're actually right.

Ought've read it a bit more carefully.

I know I am

And I don't see any reason why Russia would have non-Crimeans voting on the referendum. Majority of the people there either view themselves as Russians or Crimeans, and hate the shitheads in Kiev, be they from West or East. Why antagonize the Crimean Voting Bloc if they're planning for the long term? I know it's an emotional issue, but you gotta step aside and question reports from all sides. "Why would Putin rig elections in a manner that antagonizes a potentially loyal voting bloc, when he has nothing to gain?"

Well Putin has rigged a presidential election he was predicted to win in the past, an election in which he arguably had nothing to gain from fixing the results. Yet he did.

[Asilian]

Article 5. When someone invokes this clause the ball will roll.



http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _17120.htm

There has to be an armed attack against Poland before they can invoke article 5 though. If Poland unilaterally intervenes and is hit on Ukrainian soil, I don't think they can claim to have been subjected to an armed attack against them.

But it doesn't take much. One Russian attack that misses the mark and hits Polish soil...

exactly my point...

[Regnum Dominae]

So what? The mistakes of the past do not justify further wrongdoings.

thats true, but what would be the wrong doing in giving back mexico its territory?

The actual residents of the territory, numbering over 50 million, most surely do not want to be under Mexican governance.

[Arglorand]

thats true, but what would be the wrong doing in giving back mexico its territory?

The actual residents of the territory, numbering over 50 million, most surely do not want to be under Mexican governance.

In fact, I can barely imagine a scenario where they would willingly vote for such a transfer.

[Regnum Dominae]

The actual residents of the territory, numbering over 50 million, most surely do not want to be under Mexican governance.

In fact, I can barely imagine a scenario where they would willingly vote for such a transfer.

I can't think of ANY scenario.

Not even the Mexican-Americans here (and there are a lot of them) want to go back to Mexico. Otherwise they wouldn't have come here in the first place. The Aztlán activists are simply a very loud and obnoxious minority.

[Asilian]

The actual residents of the territory, numbering over 50 million, most surely do not want to be under Mexican governance.

In fact, I can barely imagine a scenario where they would willingly vote for such a transfer.

vote, who said anything about voting? and yes it's a stupid unpopular idea, dosent make the war right though does it? God, we took Mexican territory, we almost annexed Canada, what else America, what else?

[Regnum Dominae]

In fact, I can barely imagine a scenario where they would willingly vote for such a transfer.

vote, who said anything about voting? and yes it's a stupid unpopular idea, dosent make the war right though does it? God, we took Mexican territory, we almost annexed Canada, what else America, what else?

How does the war not being right justify the annexation, over 100 years ago, by Mexico of what is now American territory?

Your knee-jerk so-called "anti-imperialism" seems to be blinding you to the facts on the ground.

[Asilian]

I have a quick question:

Of the Americans here, in this forum, say "I" if you believe;

1) you elect the president
2) Mitt Romney and Barrak Obama are different in practice and philosophy
3) you have a say in your government
4) you know the story of Columbus
5) you know what type of government we are

[Regnum Dominae]

I have a quick question:

Of the Americans here, in this forum, say "I" if you believe;

1) you elect the president
2) Mitt Romney and Barrak Obama are different in practice and philosophy
3) you have a say in your government
4) you know the story of Columbus
5) you know what type of government we are

Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye. That was not difficult.

[Asilian]

vote, who said anything about voting? and yes it's a stupid unpopular idea, dosent make the war right though does it? God, we took Mexican territory, we almost annexed Canada, what else America, what else?

How does the war not being right justify the annexation, over 100 years ago, by Mexico of what is now American territory?

Your knee-jerk so-called "anti-imperialism" seems to be blinding you to the facts on the ground.

and what annexation would that be?

[Asilian]

I have a quick question:

Of the Americans here, in this forum, say "I" if you believe;

1) you elect the president
2) Mitt Romney and Barrak Obama are different in practice and philosophy
3) you have a say in your government
4) you know the story of Columbus
5) you know what type of government we are

Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye. That was not difficult.

Then answer question 2 by stating how:
3 by stating how
4 by stating what the story is-in short
5 by stating what form we are...

[Arglorand]

I know this might be strange, but there's an entirely different time and place to discuss American politics.

This topic is about Ukraine, not America. Cut the threadjack.

[Asilian]

I know this might be strange, but there's an entirely different time and place to discuss American politics.

This topic is about Ukraine, not America. Cut the threadjack.

ugh, fine, would anyone like to please some up what it is this thread was meant to accomplish?

[Regnum Dominae]

I know this might be strange, but there's an entirely different time and place to discuss American politics.

This topic is about Ukraine, not America. Cut the threadjack.

ugh, fine, would anyone like to please some up what it is this thread was meant to accomplish?

Discussion of the Ukrainian crisis.

And no, I'm not going to summarize 460 pages of discussion for you.

[Costa Fierro]

I know this might be strange, but there's an entirely different time and place to discuss American politics.

This topic is about Ukraine, not America. Cut the threadjack.

ugh, fine, would anyone like to please some up what it is this thread was meant to accomplish?

It is a discussion thread, where people talk about irrelevant things like masturbation until relevant news appears.

[Costa Fierro]

ugh, fine, would anyone like to please some up what it is this thread was meant to accomplish?

Discussion of the Ukrainian crisis.

And no, I'm not going to summarize 460 pages of discussion for you.

I can.

Russia done fucked up.

[Arglorand]

Discussion of the Ukrainian crisis.

And no, I'm not going to summarize 460 pages of discussion for you.

I can.

Russia done is fucked up.

Fixed for accuracy.

[Asilian]

Discussion of the Ukrainian crisis.

And no, I'm not going to summarize 460 pages of discussion for you.

I can.

Russia done fucked up.

perfect, that's just perfect. I'm glad we all have a clear puurpose that was easily summed up as "Russia done fucked up" we're all statesman and scholars, truly.

I asked about the purpose because unlike many presidents, secretaries of states, prime ministers, and ambassadors-I detest going into something without a purpose, hoping of course, to find it on the way or in the middle.