• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Journalist Eva Bartlett interviews DPR Civilians on referendum to join Russia

Hedges is morally consistent, but that doesn't mean he's right about Russia.

His commentary is about ridiculously stupid US militarism.
 
I'm sure the UK said much the same when America was drafting its constitution.
Holy cow guy, no they didnt, there was no international law 240 years ago.

You are grasping at straws.
 
To your question, some people in forums I have been in have. They say Russia put boots on the ground in Ukraine for its resources, for instance. The term invasion has other negative connotations as well, such as to conquer a place:

As to your second sentence, plenty of evidence that's not true. Here's 2 articles with said evidence:



There are others as well.
thanks for those links. I see you are doing your own research (excellent) but have to rely on non-traditional sources
That's fine. I do as well since most of the foreign policy stuff is just Atlantic.com junk. or whitewashed nonsense.

Im going to look over these links.. meantime STAY SKEPTICAL- dont take no bullshit (see my sig -the Budhha quote)
 
So, the good money is on phoenyx as a motivated Russian shill, right?
absolutely. anyone that doesnt buy the institutional crap that got us into Libya,.Iraq, and babysitting Afghan for 2 decades
can't possibly be an American :eek:
 
Holy cow guy, no they didnt, there was no international law 240 years ago.

You are grasping at straws.



Was the Pax Romana not international law? That was more than a millenia ago.
 
Renowned linguist, Noam Chomsky, uses "militarism."
Cool. And? You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism by which arms transfers to willing recipients fighting off a military invasion, framed by the invaders as a desire to erase the existence of the invaded, is 'militarism'. Show your work, man. Slogans are for teenagers.
 
absolutely. anyone that doesnt buy the institutional crap that got us into Libya,.Iraq, and babysitting Afghan for 2 decades
can't possibly be an American :eek:
One can take a dim view if adventurism and still see that the Ukrainian people want arms to resist their invaders. But, by all means, consider to confuse the two because reasons.
 
Not really, International law holds that people have the right to self-determination.
the referendums are being held in a war zone -yes- so they aren't according to Hoyle
But these areas are sympathetic to Russia ( at least as opposed to domination by Kyiv) so take them for what they are worth
It's no newsflash that Ukraine has split loyalties -and the "land bridge"to Crimea oblasts, Crimea itself and Donbas donot want to be ruled by Kyiv
 
One can take a dim view if adventurism and still see that the Ukrainian people want arms to resist their invaders. But, by all means, consider to confuse the two because reasons.
as usual you (and most others)make these sweeping statement about the "Ukrainian people" when Ukraine has split loyalties
These are pro-Russian (anti-Kyiv actions) - so the referendum just confirms the split loyaltyies seen in the east,southeast & Crimea
 
@slick - exactly
These numbers were expected in these oblasts. Don't forget that in the last legitimate Ukranian election when Ukraine was still
whole 2010. The four oblasts now counting votes were almost unanimously supporting the Russian leaning candidate in 2010:
Donetsk: Yanukovich 90.44
Luhansk: Yanukovich 88.96
Kherson: Yanukovich 59.86
Zaporiz....: Yanukovich 71,55
 
The bottom line.....

“Any annexation of a state’s territory by another state resulting from a threat or use of force is a violation of the U.N. Charter and of international law.” -- United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on 9/22/22.
 
as usual you (and most others)make these sweeping statement about the "Ukrainian people" when Ukraine has split loyalties
These are pro-Russian (anti-Kyiv actions) - so the referendum just confirms the split loyaltyies seen in the east,southeast & Crimea
How's your Ukrainian, bub? You got people in Ukraine? You want to meet the 'Russian-speaking' Ukrainian family (women only; the men were all kidnapped by gangsters and pressed into arms) from the Donbas staying three miles down the road with good friends, because the Russian 'liberators' are in fact raping, castrating, child-torturing beasts whose human provenance masks an inhuman monstrousness? Or do want to keep nattering on about Vlad ****ing Putin's side of things, like a good little gangster's shill?

My standing offer to all Putinists applies to you: I will pay for your passage to Kazan.
 
Was the Pax Romana not international law? That was more than a millenia ago.

No. Pax Romana is considered the golden age of Roman imperialism.

Modern international law developed out of Renaissance Europe.
 
No. Pax Romana is considered the golden age of Roman imperialism.

Modern international law developed out of Renaissance Europe.
Very specifically, the world order that emerged from the Treaty of Westphalia.

It's known as the Westphalian order because of what it established.
 
Cool. And? You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism by which arms transfers to willing recipients fighting off a military invasion, framed by the invaders as a desire to erase the existence of the invaded, is 'militarism'. Show your work, man. Slogans are for teenagers.

Don't try to blame me for your willing blindness.

"US militarism" isn't a slogan.
 
Don't try to blame me for your willing blindness.

"US militarism" isn't a slogan.

It was a slogan in the 60's and early70's.

You just never grew out of it.
 
How's your Ukrainian, bub? You got people in Ukraine? You want to meet the 'Russian-speaking' Ukrainian family (women only; the men were all kidnapped by gangsters and pressed into arms) from the Donbas staying three miles down the road with good friends, because the Russian 'liberators' are in fact raping, castrating, child-torturing beasts whose human provenance masks an inhuman monstrousness? Or do want to keep nattering on about Vlad ****ing Putin's side of things, like a good little gangster's shill?

My standing offer to all Putinists applies to you: I will pay for your passage to Kazan.
hysterical.you can find all kinds of propaganda and justifications for backing parties in war.
(ex.) we backed the Syrian rebels (FSA types) because the jihadist ( al-Nusra and affiliates) were committing atrocities
Turns out that was a bad idea. As is backing Kyiv's imposition of authority over a populace that doesnt want to be under their yoke

It's clear Ukraine has split loyalities, the referendum is just further confirmation -so why are we supplying arms,logistics and training to an extension of the population that doesnt want to be under their control?
 
Don't try to blame me for your willing blindness.

"US militarism" isn't a slogan.
Please just try to show your work. Retreating to another fixed slogan position isn't the kind of work I'm talking about, either.
 
The bottom line.....

“Any annexation of a state’s territory by another state resulting from a threat or use of force is a violation of the U.N. Charter and of international law.” -- United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on 9/22/22.
I don’t really see where the Russians threatened it the people of the Donbas.

However by this standard the constitutions of Germany and Japan should be illegal
 
Back
Top Bottom