Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    Motion to downgrade Russian passed by parliament but not yet signed into law.
    Ukraine is divided and neither street protests or military intervention are ideal mechanisms to solve political problems. The US, EU, NATO and the rest have been happy to ignore - or endorse - both when it suits them but gets all outraged and sanctimonious when others do.
    Sauce for the goose and gander and all that.

    The US,EU, NATO and everyone else will have policies on situations based on their national interests. Why that implies something bad or special I'll never know.


  • Options
    #273
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    The US,EU, NATO and everyone else will have policies on situations based on their national interests. Why that implies something bad or special I'll never know.

    So has Russia.


  • Options
    #274
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    First Up wrote: »
    So has Russia.

    So we are all agreed that Russia is acting for its own selfish national interests.

    It is not really interested in freeing the Crimean people from the oppressive yoke of Ukrainian imperialism. Rather it is interested in its own strategic interests in gaining better access to the ports in the Black Sea. Glad we are all clear that this is not a benevolent cuddly Mother Russia protecting its defenceless children.


  • Options
    #275
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    So has Russia.

    So you take Russia acting on it's own national interests as a valid reason to protect it from criticism, but the same action from the West means their actions should come in for more?

    Again, the politics of people who claim the hypocrisy of the West is a reason for it being an immoral and ultimately "bad" entity are the individuals with by far the most hypocrisy in their own views. I honestly don't see how people can be so unselfcritical of their own views. I know you are far from the most vociferous defender of Russian aggression, or the biggest critic of Western policy but this is just coming up again and again with no real response. In fact it has been the ONLY argument put forward in defense of all this, it has been repeatedly shot full of holes and yet repeatedly comes up.


  • Options
    #276
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    View wrote: »
    The Scottish National party won a clear majority in the last elections held in Scotland (not 3 out of 100 as was the case in Crimea). Hence, a referendum is being held there.

    Even with that majority, they'll probably lose which shows how incredible it is to suggest that pro-Russia unification has gone from having trivial levels of support in the last Crimean election to the reported "results" - results which would require Crimean Ukrainians to have overwhelmingly supported the idea, never mind unanimity among Crimean Russians, for those to be true.

    As an election result, it makes the miracles in the Bible seem like paltry stuff.

    There are other things that make the situation in Scotland different - there is not the massive threat of violence, There is a clear and free debate on this issue, international monitors are allowed full access. I'm sure I could think of more, but any one of those things would invalidate an elections legitimacy, regardless of the playing with words used in it's defense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    The Kurds and Marsh Arabs would very much disagree with you that it wasnt worth it. Even though it was a disaster, and I disagreed with it then and now, I do not agree that Saddams regime was suddenly going to make massive changes that would have dramatically lessened the suffering in the last ten years.

    About the only difference is it would have been quieter, perhaps even for people in Iraq who were not directly targeted but certainly for people in The West who routinely assume everything is fine unless a Western country is involved. That's just not the reality.

    In the case of North Korea it is doubtful that any massive intervention is possible or even desirable. I don't know if it would descend into chaos like Iraq but it is far too different economically and culturally to just be integrated with the South (many of whom are comfortable with the status quo, whatever the morality of that). North Korea also may have functioning nuclear weapons, but the extent of the fanaticism there may put the middle East to shame,

    Though that is not at all an endorsement of the status quo, anyone that knows anything about that regime knows how god awful it is and how very difficult it would be to make things perceptibly worse for a prolonged period of time. The instability though, is just to unpredictable for a full on invasion or massive regime change to be viable.

    The US was selling weapons to Saddam and supplying satellite intelligence to assist his war with Iran at the time he was gassing the Kurds.
    The Kurds know exactly where they fit into US values.


  • Options
    #278
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Since when have people started to believe that the one and only condition for a referendum or election to be valid is that people can walk into a poll booth and check a box?


  • Options
    #279
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    The US was selling weapons to Saddam and supplying satellite intelligence to assist his war with Iran at the time he was gassing the Kurds.
    The Kurds know exactly where they fit into US values.

    Opinion polls disagree, I was not stating they supported the US I stated they supported Saddams fall.

    The US is not even on the top 5 of countries that supplied Saddam with weapons, and the USSR supplied 98% on it's own. That entire argument is entirely overblown, they were never allies. The incredibly tenuous support they offered for Saddam is in no way an indication they were responsible for Saddam's regime or it's actions. Even if it was there would be many more countries that would place far higher on the list than the US.

    Even a basic knowledge of cold war politics would tell you how much of an enemy they were from the start, with him being very much in the Soviets camp.

    Also, given that you feel Russia looking out for it's national interests is a valid defense of their invasion of another country, why is the US supplying satellite photos to a state not a valid defense of their own? It is not and will never be their job to protect the Islamic regime in any way, why should it be?


  • Options
    #280
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Opinion polls disagree, I was not stating they supported the US I stated they supported Saddams fall.

    The US is not even on the top 5 of countries that supplied Saddam with weapons, and the USSR supplied 98% on it's own. That entire argument is entirely overblown, they were never allies. The incredibly tenuous support they offered for Saddam is in no way an indication they were responsible for Saddam's regime or it's actions. Even if it was there would be many more countries that would place far higher on the list than the US.

    Even a basic knowledge of cold war politics would tell you how much of an enemy they were from the start, with him being very much in the Soviets camp.

    Also, given that you feel Russia looking out for it's national interests is a valid defense of their invasion of another country, why is the US supplying satellite photos to a state not a valid defense of their own? It is not and will never be their job to protect the Islamic regime in any way, why should it be?

    You might want to read up on the detail of that incredibly tenuous support.


  • Options
    #281
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    First Up wrote: »
    Motion to downgrade Russian passed by parliament but not yet signed into law.

    The acting President vetoed the proposal as long ago as Feb. 28th. In addition, he has said that any replacment of or changes to the existing law must conform with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages which is specifically designed to protect minority languages.
    First Up wrote: »
    Ukraine is divided and neither street protests or military intervention are ideal mechanisms to solve political problems.

    The only major division in Ukraine is Crimea and that required large quantities of external "unidentified" Russian soldiers and sailors to achieve - scarcely a sign of widespread popular support.
    First Up wrote: »
    The US, EU, NATO and the rest have been happy to ignore - or endorse - both when it suits them but gets all outraged and sanctimonious when others do.
    Sauce for the goose and gander and all that.

    This is whataboutery. Russia is following the same annexation policies that Hitler did in the Sudetenland and in Prussia/Poland. You should know how well they turned out.

    There is no government in Europe that will trust Russia after this. Ukraine certainly won't, will it?

    Latest reports are governments are examining sanctions up to and including a full scale trade war with Russia. How wonderful a prize will Crimea look for Russia after a trade war?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Since when have people started to believe that the one and only condition for a referendum or election to be valid is that people can walk into a poll booth and check a box?

    Nobody other than the Russians does.

    Then again democratic choice there has degenerated to:
    Please choose if you want Putin to run Russia as:
    A) President
    B) Premier


  • Options
    #283
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    You might want to read up on the detail of that incredibly tenuous support.

    Again, mathematically a drop in the ocean to the support from many other states. You can think of it however you please beyond the numbers, really. The Soviets alone provided the vast majority, France a distant second, Italy a distant third. Saudi Arabia and West Germany also gave many times the support the US did. Again we see the double standards at play that dictates many peoples politics. Many nations that people on the left wouldnt dream of criticisng a great deal, for example Brazil, made massive amounts of money selling to both sides. And yet people need to retain their bogey man ...

    What is your point, anyway?


  • Options
    #284
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    My point?
    I suppose it is that the billions of dollars in aid, agricultural credits, military technology, intelligence, training and political support for Saddam might weaken the case for claiming the US operates to a higher moral standard than others and is thereby entitied to preach to anyone else.


  • Options
    #285
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    First Up wrote: »
    My point?
    I suppose it is that the billions of dollars in aid, agricultural credits, military technology, intelligence, training and political support for Saddam might weaken the case for claiming the US operates to a higher moral standard than others and is thereby entitied to preach to anyone else.

    Who are "the US"? and how far back into the past do we go with this?


  • Options
    #286
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Who are "the US"? and how far back into the past do we go with this?

    United States, 1980's.


  • Options
    #287
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    First Up wrote: »
    My point?
    I suppose it is that the billions of dollars in aid, agricultural credits, military technology, intelligence, training and political support for Saddam might weaken the case for claiming the US operates to a higher moral standard than others and is thereby entitied to preach to anyone else.

    Yah but the present tense is being used..

    Which generally indicates falling into the common trap of equating Obama's present-day stance with foreign policy decisions taken decades ago by different acting presidents

    Which is why I asked "how far back do you want to go".. it's whataboutery

    Hollande isn't Mitterrand, Cameron isn't Thatcher, Merkel isn't H...

    You get the point


  • Options
    #288
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    So it is clear. End of debate.



    On the contrary, it was the most popular situation in the surveys:
    http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif

    It's the one that says (as today)
    Opinion polls vary. How about this one?
    View wrote: »
    The acting President vetoed the proposal as long ago as Feb. 28th.
    Re the crackdown on Russian language, he was in favour of it initially, then did a (temporary ?) u-turn following the $hitstorm in which he lost control of Crimea.


  • Options
    #289
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Yah but the present tense is being used..

    Which generally indicates falling into the common trap of equating Obama's present-day stance with foreign policy decisions taken decades ago by different acting presidents

    Which is why I asked "how far back do you want to go".. it's whataboutery

    Hollande isn't Mitterrand, Cameron isn't Thatcher, Merkel isn't H...

    You get the point

    No I don't. We are talking about moral authority. That is something you earn. Obama is a big improvement on some of his predecessors but we still have Afghanistan, drone strikes in Yemen and plenty more. All justified in the name of freedom and democracy of course.
    The point here is that we are seeing selective application of moral standards to suit political agenda. Some of it justified but much of it is pure hypocricy.


  • Options
    #290
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    My point?
    I suppose it is that the billions of dollars in aid, agricultural credits, military technology, intelligence, training and political support for Saddam might weaken the case for claiming the US operates to a higher moral standard than others and is thereby entitied to preach to anyone else.

    Wow, you honestly think that no country uses moral language? This is the problem with everyone just getting snippets of news from, at best, the occasional show or newspaper. They seem to think the only things they notice are the only things there ARE to notice

    I'm afraid every country claims to have the moral high ground. On anything. Can you give one example of one country saying they DONT have the moral high ground, but wuold like to do X anyway?

    I'm becoming more and more convinced as I read these posts and others on other threads that the vast majority of the critics of America are motivated by a neurosis about american power rather than anything of substance. That they even bring it up so much when Russia invaddes Crimea is cringe worthy. The explanations have always been, at best, childish, at worst outright ignorant in thn assumptions they make about American actions or the lack there of or the motivation of either.


  • Options
    #291
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Yah but the present tense is being used..

    Which generally indicates falling into the common trap of equating Obama's present-day stance with foreign policy decisions taken decades ago by different acting presidents

    Which is why I asked "how far back do you want to go".. it's whataboutery

    Hollande isn't Mitterrand, Cameron isn't Thatcher, Merkel isn't H...

    You get the point

    And considering many of these people don't keep a consistent moral approach throughout a single post, the accusation that others do not over decades and different administrations is... Strange to say the least.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    No I don't. We are talking about moral authority. That is something you earn. Obama is a big improvement on some of his predecessors but we still have Afghanistan, drone strikes in Yemen and plenty more. All justified in the name of freedom and democracy of course.
    The point here is that we are seeing selective application of moral standards to suit political agenda. Some of it justified but much of it is pure hypocricy.

    I'm sorry, I thought you were one of the people that thought the invasion of Crimea was justified?


  • Options
    #293
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I thought you were one of the people that thought the invasion of Crimea was justified?

    Maybe if you read my posts more carefully you would understand them.


  • Options
    #294
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    Maybe if you read my posts more carefully you would understand them.

    Perhaps if your ideas were not based on wild assumptions, such as that the US is special in using moral language in foreign policy, they would not be so forgettable.

    I'm still curious if you have many examples of a country conceding the moral high ground in a situation, given that when the US claims it is seems so out of the ordinary to you?


  • Options
    #295
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Perhaps if your ideas were not based on wild assumptions, such as that the US is special in using moral language in foreign policy, they would not be so forgettable.

    I'm still curious if you have many examples of a country conceding the moral high ground in a situation, given that when the US claims it is seems so out of the ordinary to you?

    Do you know what hypocricy means? A simple version is saying one thing and doing another. Or criticising someone for something, while doing much the same yourself.


  • Options
    #296
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    Do you know what hypocricy means? A simple version is saying one thing and doing another. Or criticising someone for something, while doing much the same yourself.

    Would an example be roundly condemning the invasion of, oh I don't know, Iraq whilst supporting the invasion of another state? Would it be doubling down on the hypocrisy if someone were to claim that when a state does the same thing - supports one invasion but condemns another - that this is particularly morally bankrupt?

    Please, I've been bombarded with examples of it on this issue, thanks. And the reasons given for it must even seem weak to the people saying them.

    So no examples? And yet you seem to have based an enormous amount of your positions on international issues on the assumption. I doubt you will change it, regardless of it being pointed out how naive it was, but then thats not surprising.


  • Options
    #297
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    First Up wrote: »
    No I don't. We are talking about moral authority. That is something you earn.

    Not really, if Ron Paul, or any newcomer stepped into office and declared military operations in Pakistan over - no one would accuse them of being hypocritical - much less of not having the moral authority to do so
    we still have Afghanistan, drone strikes in Yemen and plenty more. All justified in the name of freedom and democracy of course.

    At least these are modern examples done under his leadership - but - still a very separate complex situation and a good bit off-topic

    Putin is annexing foreign territory - it's a hard position to defend - the worst way to defend it is to try to attack other leaders for taking the same or similar action in the past or even present


  • Options
    #298
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Not really, if Ron Paul, or any newcomer stepped into office and declared military operations in Pakistan over - no one would accuse them of being hypocritical - much less of not having the moral authority to do so

    As in you see it as something that is lost, not something that is gained? I agree.

    If Bush had cancelled the Iraq war before it began no one would say "Well the US DIDNT invade Iraq, so Russia has no right to invade Crimea" or at least, none of the people claiming this is all legitimate would acknowledge it as a good argument.

    I'm still getting my head around the fact the biggest defence for all this is that the West invaded countries. They then go on to say how bad that was, usually, or imply it. Then point out the hypocrisy. That so many people can do this, including Putin and people jaws are not hitting the floor is very irritating.


  • Options
    #299
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    SamHarris wrote: »
    There are other things that make the situation in Scotland different - there is not the massive threat of violence, There is a clear and free debate on this issue, international monitors are allowed full access. I'm sure I could think of more, but any one of those things would invalidate an elections legitimacy, regardless of the playing with words used in it's defense.

    There are interesting parallels, though: David Cameron describing both votes as "illegal" if held without the express permission of their "parent" entity. In other words, he's consistent (at least between these whole two instances!) on the right of self-determination of "autonomous" entities: there simply isn't one.

    I think the debate here is less about how far the Crimean situation falls short of "ideal" and "democratic norms", and more about how accurate Western responses like Joe Biden's "land grab" are. Accounts that erase the context and motivation for this happening are all too common.


  • Options
    #300
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    View wrote: »
    Running governments out of office is okay in Crimea but not in Kiev, is that it?

    I think the difficulty many of us have is that exactly the opposite assumption seems to be the unexamined orthodoxy in a lot of places.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    View wrote: »
    pro-Russia unification has gone from having trivial levels of support in the last Crimean election

    This is a fanciful construction to put on the results of an election that was not about unification with Russia. If you're merely uninformed, try reading 538's article on this. If you're being actively disingenuous, as seems not unlikely given your track record in this thread, consider yourself called on it.


Advertisement