14
   

"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations"

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:02 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
You mean like the pretext/lies used to invade Vietnam, or South Korea, or any of the multitude of other countries the US has invaded over the years, including those invaded when a dem was president?


Absophuckinglutely, MM. But let's just start with the current war criminals. That'd go a long way towards rectifying the mess.
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:04 pm
@mysteryman,
As an ex-patriotic fighter for the noble country and a respected member in all the chat forums would you mind to stick to the subject of this thread ?
Is it too hard for you?

Civil courage mysterman is imbibed in my blood.
i had not hidden my name nor wish to tolerate the barbarism.
Should ward be allowed?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:08 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

And we shouldnt have.
We should not have attacked Kosovo, nor should we have provided any aid to them.


So what should the punishment be?
Quote:

Now tell me, when you say..."Russia unilaterally recognizes the independence of South Ossetia in much the same way and what's good for the goose should be good for the gander", are you suggesting that we started a war so Kosovo could become independent?


Where did you make that idiotic leap? I suggested nothing of the sort. The US and its western allies unilaterally recognized Kosovo as an independent nation. That is simple fact.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the US invaded Serbia in support of Kosovo independence?
Are you suggesting that the US started that war?


I'm suggesting you read the news at this point, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about an event in February this year and not the previous military conflicts.

Start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/world/europe/19kosovo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
NY Times wrote:

Kosovo won the recognition of the United States and its biggest Western European allies on Monday, while earning rebukes and rejections from Serbia, Russia and a disparate mix of states the world over who face their own separatist movements at home.


There is an example of the US unilaterally deciding that a breakaway region of Serbia is an independent nation. Russia has unilaterally decided to recognize the independence of South Ossetia.

You criticize Russia for meddling in the "internal" matters of another country, but it the US can recognize countries at whim then upon what basis do you declare that Russia can't?

These are events that are connected, and part of what I'm criticizing. The US is rewriting maps, has no leverage to prevent Russia from doing the same, and yet has the temerity to talk tough about it.

Quote:
We should not have recognized Kosovo, nor should we recognize the independence of South Ossetia, at least not till the govt of Georgia does.


It's just not that simple. Have you ever read the US Declaration of Independence?

Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.....

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


It asserts self-determination as a natural law. South Ossetia has been fighting for self determination for a decade and separatism is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Quote:
Legitimacy or not boils down to a single question: Who is authorized to decide whether or not any given government is legitimate?

Is this a decision which is made by large powers only, such as the United States, Russia, or China? If so, why them? They have sometimes created countries out of places where no countries existed before. But the majority of the countries in the world were not created that way.

Or is this decision made in the United Nations? A few countries in the world have been created after joint decisions in the United Nations, with examples including Namibia and East Timor. Soon, Kosovo may be added to the list. But the United Nations is not in the business of creating new countries, and the majority of the countries in the world were not created this way.

So how were the majority of the countries created? The same way that Moldova was: By a unilateral declaration of independence.


http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/1241

The US has been undermining international rule of law in order to not have an authority to answer to. That lacking authority creates these kinds of situations where might makes right.

The US has preached might makes right for a decade now, and this is an example where the US lacks the might to get what it wants and there are no other legitimate authorities to deal with it objectively.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:10 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

BTW, wasnt it Bill Clinton that ordered the USAF to start bombing?
Why didnt you complain then?


For heaven's sake would you just read the news already? You are talking out of your ass and I am referencing events from this year. Trying to tie it to Clinton is absolutely ridiculous.
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:38 pm
@Robert Gentel,
i guess stopping "any and all co-operation" with russia is what the the american people really want .
but what do i read here :
"U.S. Private Sector Preparing to 'Pull Out the Stops' to Ensure Repeal of
Jackson-Vanik with Strong WTO Agreement in Hand "

can't be , can it ? GRIN !


http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS185986+25-Apr-2008+PRN20080425

Quote:
Collaborative U.S.-Russian Energy Partnership Hailed in Houston
Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:56am EDT

U.S. Private Sector Preparing to 'Pull Out the Stops' to Ensure Repeal of
Jackson-Vanik with Strong WTO Agreement in Hand

HOUSTON, April 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- One day after the announcement by
Russia's energy giant Gazprom that it plans to become a significant supplier
of natural gas to the United States, the U.S. energy capital, Houston, Texas,
served as the backdrop for the fourth day of a U.S.-Russia Road Show aimed at
drawing attention to bilateral successes in the commercial sphere and the
imperative for increased political cooperation between the two countries.

At a luncheon organized by the Houston World Affairs Council and sponsored by
U.S. oil major ConocoPhillips, U.S.-Russia Business Council President Eugene
Lawson saluted ConocoPhillips and Russia's largest private oil company,
Lukoil, for setting an excellent example as to how U.S. and Russian businesses
can work together for common benefit and profitability. ConocoPhillips owns a
20 percent share of Lukoil, and the companies are successfully partnering in
Russia on a series of projects. Additionally, Lukoil has expanded into the
United States with its operation of service stations on the East Coast.


0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:45 pm
@JTT,
OK,what war crimes has Bush been convicted of, or even indicted for?
What war crimes has Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any other member of the administration been indicted for or convicted of?

If there is no indictment or no conviction, then they arent guilty of a crime.
So, when do the indictments get handed down?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:49 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Your right, and I was wrong.
I thought you were talking about the earlier war, when Clinton was President.

But I still stand by my statement that the US should not recognize any breakaway region as an independent country till the parent country does.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:50 pm
@mysteryman,
Ok, so since Iraq didn't recognize the independence of Kuwait they had every right to invade and the world had no right to meddle in their internal affairs?

That's a far too simplistic world view.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 03:59 pm
@Robert Gentel,
IF that were true, then the world did have no right to meddle, but that isnt true.

You dont have diplomatic relations and embassies in countries you dont recognize.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=3413018
Quote:
Cairo, Egypt -AP, September 4, 2005) -- Iraq will within weeks reopen its embassy in Kuwait for the first time since it closed after Saddam Hussein ordered the 1990 invasion of the tiny country, Iraq's foreign minister said Sunday.


And from here...
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Kuwait-HISTORY.html

We get this...

Quote:
On 19 June 1961, the protective treaty relations with the United Kingdom were terminated by mutual consent, and Kuwait declared itself fully sovereign and independent. By this time, the sheikhdom had already become a major oil producer and had acquired a controlling interest in the petroleum industry. Iraq refused to recognize Kuwait's independence, asserting it had inherited the Ottoman claim to the territory. Baghdad's threat of an invasion was foiled by the dispatch of British troops and later the support for Kuwait of the Arab League. Iraq then appeared to acquiesce in Kuwait's sovereignty, although border issues were never definitely resolved. During the next two decades, Kuwait succeeded in establishing an open and prosperous economy, based in large part on foreign, especially Palestinian and Egyptian, labor.


And if you dont recognize a countries independence, why do you seek loans and material aid from them in a war?

Quote:
During the Iran-Iraq War, Kuwait, albeit technically neutral, rendered important assistance to Baghdad, including the transshipment of goods and the provision of over $6 billion in loans. As a response, members of Kuwait's large Shi'a minority and other radical dissidents waged a war of terrorism against the government. Throughout the 1980s, there were bombings, assassination attempts, hijackings, and sabotage against oil facilities.


So Iraq DID recognize Kuwaits independence.



Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 04:09 pm
@mysteryman,
You seriously want to bark up this tree? You really think a nation's legitimacy is all contingent on the "original country" recognizing the breakaway region? That notion is absurd on its face but let's run with it:

Does Syria have the right to invade the Golan Heights without any US intervention?

Does China have the right to invade Taiwan without any US intervention?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 04:13 pm
@mysteryman,
Before you had posted I edited my post from saying that they "never" recognized Kuwait (which is obviosly untrue) to that they "didn't" recognize them. Yes I know that Iraq had recognized them but at the time of the war they didn't.

Quote:
And if you dont recognize a countries independence, why do you seek loans and material aid from them in a war?


So Bank of America is a country now? What kind of nonsense criteria are you going to keep making up? First self-determination is contingent on recognition from the party they seek independence from (a very silly notion if I may say so) and now asking for a loan means you recognize something as a nation?

Where do you get these absurd rules?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 04:25 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Aside from the subject of this thread.
i am an ignorant member with pasty English to boot with.
I read all the views.
I seldom get any new views other than the same old patriotic pathatic psalms.
How about getting some new thoughts to wipe out our traditional/commercial/ outmoded views?
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 04:29 pm
@Robert Gentel,
The two root causes of our problems with Russia are Kosovo and demoKKKrats not allowing anybody to drill for oil in America; both of these things are demoKKKrat problems. We should be exporting petroleum and not importing it and nobody in D.C. should have to give a rat's ass what goes on in the Caucasus or in Central Asia.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 04:39 pm
@Ramafuchs,
How about taking your verbal diarrhea somewhere else? You have nothing edifying to contribute. Goes for gungasnake as well, two idiots from each end of the political spectrum.
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 04:54 pm
@Robert Gentel,
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050709/news_1b9lukoil.html

Quote:
Russia's Lukoil enters 13 states

Company interested in West Coast, too

By Deborah Yao
ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 9, 2005

PHILADELPHIA " Lukoil, Russia's largest oil company, has launched a marketing offensive to put its name on gas stations across the United States and become as well known here as it is at home.

Over the last five years, OAO Lukoil " pronounced luke-oil " has entered the U.S. market by acquiring about 1,300 Getty gas stations and 800 Mobil locations in the Northeast. It is converting them to its brand and recently launched advertising to introduce itself to consumers in 13 states.



i wonder if some people might refuse to fill up at the gas stations taken over by LUKEOIL ? (GRIN)
or perhaps those stations are reserved for democrats ?
anyway , it seems that american business has no qualms working with LUKEOIL , does it ?
and they seem to be getting plenty of customers too .
noting with interest that the deal was struck way back in 2005
no one noticed it in 2005 - 2006 - 2007 ???
hbg (having a great deal of fun with this !)
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 06:57 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I expect some better English from you which is your mother-tongue i presume.
Does not matter.
Ignore my verbal vomitation which is not your soup to sip.
Only barbarians will uphold war and get their name tarnished.
Rama
Ramafuchs
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 07:04 pm
@Ramafuchs,
If I start a subject( mostly ignored ) I will never belittle the respondents with personal villification.
It is your thread and i had aired my views which may differ from that of you.
curtaling/sensoring the critical views is the first step to start bararism.
.
Sorry for my faulty english but accept that English has many variations.
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 07:17 pm
@Ramafuchs,
I am not censoring critical views, I am censuring idiotic ones. You have nothing to contribute, but fill up pages and pages of good threads with vapidity by posting over and over when nobody is interested in talking to you. That is your prerogative, just as it is mine to lament when you do it to one of my threads.
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 07:24 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I will expose my views with my own threads and i assure sir that i will not pollute your thread.
Goodbye.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 07:24 pm
@Ramafuchs,
I thank you sincerely.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 01:32:05