Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

Because I read a lot of various media, so I can find easier what can be probably true or not

rumpil, remember the 'fact' that the US caused the chemical attack in Syria? (some) of the media you read is flawed and biased. So everything you 'quote' has to be fact checked.

But let me ask you something else, too: What's the point of the United Nations? The international recognized boundaries and sovereignty? The international law, the UN Charter? ..If you can choose by your own what you like to follow and what you don't? There can't be a double standards! But there are. Unfortunately, the western world began to use it in Kosovo and it was the question of time when it will turns back this way. If it was wrong - fix it and correct the harm, just as you'd have a right for a compensation if you were inocent in a jail. If it wasn't the case - then let others to do the same. Quite simple, isn't it? Me, but you as well (if you want to be honest), do not accept "we can make a mistake, but you can't" cause it's not right, it's not correct.

This is a fact that most Western people refuse to see. It was the NATO who started not following international law. The NATO had no business in Kosovo. The NATO is - or should be - a defense alliance. Not the army of the Western Empire to conquer any country it wants to. But then again, truth is treason in the empire of lies.

In my humble opinion, I actually think that getting rid of Crimea, could actually do Ukrainie a lot of good... :-], despite the totally unacceptable way in which russia did/will steal it. I am only worried that Putin will want more now..

I think it is really wrong to steal land this way and shouldn't be accepted in any way. And looking at what recourses Ukraine will lose, it is also very costly to lose that land.

Of course I agree, not like this...



...but looking at it from another perspective (just theoretically), this would substantially cut a large chunk of the russian/pro-russian population in Ukraine overall. This would give more political stability and the resources would be more concentrated geographically and more precious ;-), also russia would feel triumphant (like they are now, anyway) and would/could calm or at least slow down in their gangster politics (for a moment at least).
At the moment Russia wants even more.. :-] (despite that they can't have it, their still taking it), about a half of Ukrainie to be exact with all the resources to destabilise the rest of Ukrainie completly, and their idea is to scare the population into believing their idiotic propaganda, which unfortunately just might (I hope it doesn't) but it just might work there in the far east, which effectively is cuf off from Ukrainian media (since 10 of march), and effectively the world.
I my opinion the current sanctions are close to irrelevant to russias ruling elite, the reaction should be much much stronger and presise and much much quicker (to late for that now), or on the other side of the spectrum it could be less defencive towards russia, yes... in the short term, to succeed in the long run (meanig, shortening the crisis now) - giving time to Ukraine to sort itself out without the conflict with russia, in stead of whats happening now, ...building up for a potential military conflict in which they don't stand a chance anyway. At the moment, unfortunately everyone is blowing wind up the russian sail and most probably pre-planned provocations. :-]

Still this is just an idea, 99,9% of thinking world correctly doesn't agree with the anschluss.
(edited)

...But then again, truth is treason in the empire of lies



Well said, man!

Exclusive: UK banks in row over Yulia Tymoshenko 'millions'

Yugoslavia wasnt some obscure country in Africa, West had following this war. Nobody have believed that something like this should happen in 90s Europe. Some people blamed their governments that they have done nothing to stop it and then some blamed their too when they have decided join action. It was lose-lose situation for west doesnt matter which stand they chose. If you actually do not believe that its our governments who decided to demolish Yugoslavia, I think you should understand our perspective. You context is very personal and painful, but try look on it from another perspective. If I would be in charge I would have done it differently, majority of Czechs are strictly againist. But its bad that for somebody it is excuse for other violations. Sorry for bad English.
(edited)

Non country is an "obscure country", man. There are countries that are members of the UN, there is the UN Chapter as an international act of law, there is the Security Council that is in charge for crises and there is no alliance under the United Nations! Even NATO alliance isn't (or at least shouldn't be)! But unfortunately there's also "law" of military power and it's demonstration happened air strikes in '99, just as is happening nowadays in Crimea.
Decide if you are gonna follow the UN Chapter as the international law or not, but don't complain if others do the same if you choose not.

Decide if you are gonna follow the UN Chapter as the international law or not, but don't complain if others do the same if you choose not.

Which 2 situations are the same, according to you?

Decide if you are gonna follow the UN Chapter as the international law or not, but don't complain if others do the same if you choose not.



even in Libya the UN decide for non flying zone and they bomb helping the islamists to win

I'm talking about NATO's air strikes on Serbia and invasion on Kosovo after the bombing ended (and support of Kosovo independence after all) and Russian invasion on Crimea, leading to independence of Crimea.
You tell me - what's the difference, except the actors?

Comparing apples and pears is a good comment ... is that really what you are saying right now? Or is it because it is the kind of comment you like to see so that's why it's a good comment, eventhough it doesn't make sense?

You tell me - what's the difference, except the actors?

You really want to know all the differences? I don't think the forum can handle so much text :/

Please, don't ask these things. Because others can't see you over the internet doesn't mean you can therefore act this dumb. You still have to look at yourself in the mirror every day and take yourself serious ....

The only difference that might be given is the (attempted) genocide (the discussion on whether it actually happened or not is not that interesting) that was going on. But that difference is not relevant in international law. The UN Security Council must give its permission to violate the sovereignty of a member state. It did not, as Russia and China would not have agreed.

Actually, another difference is that the NATO actually killed innocent civilians (for instance the bombing of the Serbian TV station in Belgrade and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy (!) in Belgrade). As far as we know, Russia did not do that in Crimea or Ukraine.

But that doesn't matter to Charles. He thinks it's good vs. bad (with Putin being on this side) while it's way more complicated than that.
(edited)

Your only answer is "don't ask these things" and now I should take you seriously?
LOL

I will ignore the rest of your post cause it's under my level to talk this way, but I'll say once again: law is law, same for everyone! The UN Chapter, as well. No exceptions just because I'm a friend with judge.

Comparing apples and pears is a good comment ... is that really what you are saying right now? Or is it because it is the kind of comment you like to see so that's why it's a good comment, eventhough it doesn't make sense?

I am compering respect to international law and UN. Its not apples and pears is the exact same think.
US is violating often UN law but now hypocritically is saying about Krimea.
Thats the fact Charles and you know that is true.
So we can all agree to respect the UN dicisions and follow that or else every one who have the power wil do what he can do