Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 08:07 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 07:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  When troops of one nation enter the territory of another nation, without permission, in order to seize assets and enforce their will, we generally call that "invasion".

Copy and paste where exactly Putin admitted to that, as you claimed. I dare you.

Putin's claim, whether or not it's valid, was that troops who were already in Crimea acted as peacekeepers to ensure fair elections. That is the complete opposite of what you just wrote. So when you keep saying that "Putin admitted it" it just sounds like you're speaking your own language.

(09-05-2014 07:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The same nebulous "West" you insist refuses to recognise secession contains Canada, the UK, and France among others, who have all explicitly recognised the right to and legitimacy of secession referenda within their territories. So there's that.

Correct! And that's why I've said the West, in general, has been pretty hypocritical, since the West has often recognized the right to secession. If they said "Crimea has the right to secede, but we need to be sure it's done through a fair democratic process and that the details are negotiated in good faith", great. I'd buy that. But the West (in general) has said the opposite--that Crimea simply does have the right to secede, so there's no vote to be held and no details to iron out. I'm hardly the only one to point this out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  When troops of one nation enter the territory of another nation, without permission, in order to seize assets and enforce their will, we generally call that "invasion".

Copy and paste where exactly Putin admitted to that, as you claimed. I dare you.

Putin's claim, whether or not it's valid, was that troops who were already in Crimea acted as peacekeepers to ensure fair elections. That is the complete opposite of what you just wrote. So when you keep saying that "Putin admitted it" it just sounds like you're speaking your own language.

So an explicit acknowledgement that Russian troops violated the sovereignty of Ukraine, in your universe, does not constitute an admission that Russian troops violated the sovereignty of Ukraine. Gotcha.

The pre-existing government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was deposed. Do you need a specific citation on this, or shall I leave it to your ability to consult any one of thousands of news reports from March of this year? Russian special forces seized the government apparatus and forcibly removed the previous members.

Aksyonov, a minor irrelevant Crimean politician, was forcibly installed as governor by those same Russian troops. Do you need a specific citation on this, or shall I leave it to your ability to consult any one of thousands of news reports from March of this year?

Russian troops were not already "in Crimea". That is another delightfully dishonest obfuscation. Russian troops were in Sevastopol. Simferopol is, as it happens, a hundred kilometres away.

Putin indeed claimed that the presence of thousands of armed and highly visible foreign troops did not have an effect on how the Crimean people acted. This despite their acting to establish curfews and roadblocks and their shutting down of media outlets.

I leave it to those reading to decide for themselves whether heavily armed and overbearing foreign soldiers would affect - even slightly - their conduct.

I also leave it to those reading to decide for themselves whether a result of 97% seems reasonable, when polling as late as February demonstrated nothing of the sort. I take this opportunity to remind the folks at home that Askyonov - the same Aksyonov the Russians found so helpful, once their special forces cleared his new office for him - had contested Crimean elections for twenty years and never won more than single digit support.

(09-05-2014 08:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The same nebulous "West" you insist refuses to recognise secession contains Canada, the UK, and France among others, who have all explicitly recognised the right to and legitimacy of secession referenda within their territories. So there's that.

Correct! And that's why I've said the West, in general, has been pretty hypocritical, since the West has often recognized the right to secession. If they said "Crimea has the right to secede, but we need to be sure it's done through a fair democratic process and that the details are negotiated in good faith", great. I'd buy that. But the West (in general) has said the opposite--that Crimea simply does have the right to secede, so there's no vote to be held and no details to iron out. I'm hardly the only one to point this out.

What they actually said was that the situation as it developed in Crimea was illegitimate.

You (and, to be fair to idiots, others - "hardly the only one" indeed) chose to misrepresent this as something else entirely - a general reference as opposed to a specific reference. The nations in question were not the ones to say "secession is never okay"; that is yet another thing you made up.

But then, reading comprehension was never your strong suit.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 09:10 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 03:54 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  For the U.S., the question was settled 150 years ago at Appomattox Court House.
It really is simple.

Spoken like a true caveman. djhall's post was incisive and brought up a lot of valuable points and food for thought, such as the source of state authority, something intellectuals and philosophers have debated for years.

It's very revealing that your response is it's all non-sense and this is a simple matter that was properly "settled" during the US Civil War, where millions of people of slaughtered each other and half the country was left in economic ruin to prevent a secession.

So, whenever there's a disagreement over a complex issue, like secession, your answer seems to be "It's simple. Both sides should fight and kill each other, and whoever is the last man standing is the one who was in the right". ie "might makes right".

To me, it's most definitely NOT that simple. Just because the North had the military advantage and the power to leave the South a steaming pile of rubble does NOT mean that they were right to do so.

I wonder if you carry you're "it's simple" to other disputes, like in marriage. If a husband and wife are fighting and can't agree on a resolution, do you also advocate they both just get knives and try to kill each other and whichever one is alive at the end is the one who was in the right?

No, not 'whenever'. Reread the post you simpleton. It was settled for the U.S. This is a response to your Arizona hypothetical.

Besides, those people should just move. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 09:12 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 04:12 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  "New Mexico" does not have any will or desires, only people do.

If those people want to be Mexican, they can leave and go to Mexico. They just don't get to steal the territory from the owners.

For the U.S., the question was settled 150 years ago at Appomattox Court House.

It really is simple.

I'm not sure that simplifies the matter instead of making it more complex in moral and governance theory terms as opposed to practical terms.

""New Mexico" does not have any will or desires, only people do." This statement seems to raise questions regarding the nature of New Mexico, if it is something more than simply the aggregate of its citizens, what the relationship is between those citizens, whether it is worthy of recognition separately from that context, and which takes precedence, the state or the aggregate citizens of that state.

"They just don't get to steal the territory from the owners." I agree. I just question the clarity of exactly what gets to claim to be "the owners". Why aren't the owners the people who live there? Or their state? If we are going to go with their country, why not go with a larger political grouping? Why doesn't New Mexico properly belong to the UN and the world? That would be bigger than simply the US to approximately the same degree as the US is bigger than New Mexico... Granting supreme ownership to the federal level above the others seems rather arbitrary without a more cohesive theory of personal, local, regional, national, and world governing authority,

"For the U.S., the question was settled 150 years ago at Appomattox Court House." Yes, it was, but it was settled mostly on "might makes right" or at least "might makes what is" grounds. I earlier quoted the relevant supreme court decision which blatantly stated that we don't have the right to secede, but we do have the right to revolt, and the legitimacy of any revolt is determined by whether or not the revolt can successfully defend itself. That is an eminently practical decision, but not really one representing elegant moral and political philosophy.

I am pragmatic. For the U.S. it is settled law - states cannot secede.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 08:41 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What they actually said was that the situation as it developed in Crimea was illegitimate.

Citation needed. Again, you're making this stuff up. The West never said that Crimea's secession was "illegitimate" because of the "situation" under which the vote took place. The West clearly said Crimea's secession was illegal. Period. No matter what the situation. Whether Russian troops were there or not.

(09-05-2014 08:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The nations in question were not the ones to say "secession is never okay"; that is yet another thing you made up.

Correct, the nations in question fully accept secession if the region breaks away from a foe to join an ally. I always said that. The nations in question DID however say, unequivocally, that it is NOT okay for Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia under any circumstances. That hypocrisy is the core point I'm making.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 09:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am pragmatic. For the U.S. it is settled law - states cannot secede.

Got it. When a court decides something, the matter is settled. End of subject. So blacks are separate but equal, the government should castrate/sterilize any citizens it deems unworthy of participating in the gene pool, and should lock up gays. End of subject. The courts have decided. According to Chas.

According to frankksj, however, the courts job is to enforce the will of the legislature/founders, however they often instead enforce their own will. The US founders would be horrified to see the courts turn this bastion of liberty they created into a prison, where states could enter but would be killed if they tried to leave. Further, it defies contract law. Whenever an agreement has no termination clause, that clearly means it CAN be terminated. When you sign up for a gym membership, food deliver, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc., and you accept an agreement that does not contain a termination clause, that means you can terminate at will. It DOES not mean, as you imply, that the agreement is indefinite and the gym can kill you if you try to leave.

The reason your position looks so moronic to libertarians is because we stop and think, as djhall put out, 'what is government and where does it get its authority?' Government IS just individuals, and gets its authority from those individuals, and thus has no authority to do anything that individuals themselves couldn't do. So, as Frédéric Bastiat pointed out in The Law, whenever debating if something is proper you should ask yourself how you would respond if an individual did it. What if I, as an individual, invited you into my home, and once inside said you could never leave and I'd kill you if you tried? Would you accept that as my legitimate right? If the answer is 'no', then I, as an individuals, cannot transfer that right to the government through a vote because I don't have that right in the first place. Therefore, when individuals in the government assume that right it is illegitimate since it means the government no longer serves the people and derive authority from the people, but rather, that government leaders are somehow superhuman beings with rights and powers no mortal human possesses. You are elevating them to god-like status. This is why we libertarians always prefer dealing with private corporations, not government. Because everybody accepts that a private corporation is just a group of individuals that derives its authority from the participants (shareholders) and have no rights beyond what rights the shareholders have. A private corporation cannot kill you for refusing to buy their product. But, even though a government really IS the same thing as a corporation, you accept governments have these omnipotent powers to micromanage every aspect of our lives and take those lives whenever it suits them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 09:11 AM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2014 12:06 PM by Chas.)
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(10-05-2014 08:57 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 09:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am pragmatic. For the U.S. it is settled law - states cannot secede.

Got it. When a court decides something, the matter is settled. End of subject. So blacks are separate but equal, the government should castrate/sterilize any citizens it deems unworthy of participating in the gene pool, and should lock up gays. End of subject. The courts have decided. According to Chas.

According to frankksj, however, the courts job is to enforce the will of the legislature/founders, however they often instead enforce their own will. The US founders would be horrified to see the courts turn this bastion of liberty they created into a prison, where states could enter but would be killed if they tried to leave. Further, it defies contract law. Whenever an agreement has no termination clause, that clearly means it CAN be terminated. When you sign up for a gym membership, food deliver, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc., and you accept an agreement that does not contain a termination clause, that means you can terminate at will. It DOES not mean, as you imply, that the agreement is indefinite and the gym can kill you if you try to leave.

The reason your position looks so moronic to libertarians is because we stop and think, as djhall put out, 'what is government and where does it get its authority?' Government IS just individuals, and gets its authority from those individuals, and thus has no authority to do anything that individuals themselves couldn't do. So, as Frédéric Bastiat pointed out in The Law, whenever debating if something is proper you should ask yourself how you would respond if an individual did it. What if I, as an individual, invited you into my home, and once inside said you could never leave and I'd kill you if you tried? Would you accept that as my legitimate right? If the answer is 'no', then I, as an individuals, cannot transfer that right to the government through a vote because I don't have that right in the first place. Therefore, when individuals in the government assume that right it is illegitimate since it means the government no longer serves the people and derive authority from the people, but rather, that government leaders are somehow superhuman beings with rights and powers no mortal human possesses. You are elevating them to god-like status. This is why we libertarians always prefer dealing with private corporations, not government. Because everybody accepts that a private corporation is just a group of individuals that derives its authority from the participants (shareholders) and have no rights beyond what rights the shareholders have. A private corporation cannot kill you for refusing to buy their product. But, even though a government really IS the same thing as a corporation, you accept governments have these omnipotent powers to micromanage every aspect of our lives and take those lives whenever it suits them.

I just love how you spin things and put words in people's mouths. You are such a fucking stupid, dishonest cunt.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-05-2014, 09:47 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What they actually said was that the situation as it developed in Crimea was illegitimate.

Just opened news.google.com. Today's headline:

France and Germany Saturday warned Russia of "consequences" if Moscow continued to sow unrest ahead of Ukrainian elections later this month, on the eve of "illegal" referendums the West fears will split the country apart.


Got that? They're not accusing Russia of "invading", they are accusing Russia of "sowing unrest". Simply writing a blog about government atrocities is "sowing unrest", which they're now arguing will bring "consequences". So much for free speech. And, note they do not say the referendums on secession are illegitimate because voters are being coerced, rather, they say the entire process of letting the regions vote to determine their own fate is illegal--no matter the terms, and even if the region fairly compensates all involved parties including the national government.

You're revisionist claim that the West recognizes Ukraine's regions right to self-determination and is merely concerned with the fairness of the votes is laughable. That's the whole point of my OP--the West is saying the opposite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(10-05-2014 09:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 08:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What they actually said was that the situation as it developed in Crimea was illegitimate.

Just opened news.google.com. Today's headline:

France and Germany Saturday warned Russia of "consequences" if Moscow continued to sow unrest ahead of Ukrainian elections later this month, on the eve of "illegal" referendums the West fears will split the country apart.


Got that? They're not accusing Russia of "invading", they are accusing Russia of "sowing unrest".

In Donetsk and Lugansk.

Not Crimea, which was invaded ten weeks ago and now annexed to Russia. Please try to keep up.

(10-05-2014 09:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Simply writing a blog about government atrocities is "sowing unrest", which they're now arguing will bring "consequences". So much for free speech. And, note they do not say the referendums on secession are illegitimate because voters are being coerced, rather, they say the entire process of letting the regions vote to determine their own fate is illegal--no matter the terms, and even if the region fairly compensates all involved parties including the national government.

"The West" (not monolithic, but why let nuance trouble you here of all places?) are very plainly saying the referenda organised by armed mobs founded on street violence and intimidation are not legitimate.

Not all referenda. That is your made-up nonsense.

(10-05-2014 09:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You're revisionist claim that the West recognizes Ukraine's regions right to self-determination and is merely concerned with the fairness of the votes is laughable.

*Your.

That isn't what I said. That isn't what anyone said.

But, nice try?

(10-05-2014 09:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  That's the whole point of my OP--the West is saying the opposite.

You evidently have no idea what is actually happening. You've misrepresented what sources you claim to have read and been demonstrably ignorant of many others. Not that you let that stop you from proceeding with the same delusional confirmation-bias laden superficial reductionist "analysis" as ever.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
10-05-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(10-05-2014 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That isn't what I said. That isn't what anyone said.

IMO you vacillate and waffle on these issues, refusing to take a specific position, so that no matter how the thread continues, you can claim you were right all along. I will try yet again to pin you down....

Assume a province in Ukraine, say Donetsk, holds a fair, democratic vote on secession, and a clear majority vote to secede, however the national government opposes it...

Q: Do you, personally, feel that Ukraine's national government should accept this move and negotiate in good faith the details, like Ukrainian-owned property in the region?

Q: What do you believe has been the position of the US, Germany, France and the UK?


Please, none of the usual excuses like 'this is nuanced' which allow to avoid taking a stand so you can always claim you were right all along. Grow a pair and go on the record with your views.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: