Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
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
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
You should take yourself serious, I don't care if you take me serious or not. Besides, you asked me for an impossible answer as it will take me at least a couple of weeks or even months to write down all the differences. And because of that you should not ask me such dumb questions.
But I think I know what the problem is looking at your texts and country of origin, you are connected way too emotionally with the Kosovo situation to talk objectively about it and use it as an example. And to me it even looks like this all has not that much to do with Crimea for you, but mostly with some underbelly feeling because of what happend with Kosovo and now you can use it to say 'don't complain ....'
EDIT: you post below proves my point of being too emotionally connected.
(edited)
But I think I know what the problem is looking at your texts and country of origin, you are connected way too emotionally with the Kosovo situation to talk objectively about it and use it as an example. And to me it even looks like this all has not that much to do with Crimea for you, but mostly with some underbelly feeling because of what happend with Kosovo and now you can use it to say 'don't complain ....'
EDIT: you post below proves my point of being too emotionally connected.
(edited)
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.
We won't discuss the issue, I won't deny that terrible things happened down there, on both sides! But there were no verdict in International Court of Justice for genocide, and therefore we shouldn't use that word. But if you mention, I need to highlight that KLA is been classified as a terrorist organizations by CIA in 80's and the beginning of 90's, because of their attacks on police stations and army. So, should people of Crimea take arms too and begin attacks on police and army so they would get independence?
We won't discuss the issue, I won't deny that terrible things happened down there, on both sides! But there were no verdict in International Court of Justice for genocide, and therefore we shouldn't use that word. But if you mention, I need to highlight that KLA is been classified as a terrorist organizations by CIA in 80's and the beginning of 90's, because of their attacks on police stations and army. So, should people of Crimea take arms too and begin attacks on police and army so they would get independence?
You are constantly missing the point, dude. UN Chapter is to follow by everyone. Otherwise, who decides whether or not?
Thats the fact Charles and you know that is true.
I have seen that 'true' of yours many more times. I will tell you this, because you think it is true doesn't mean it is true.
And if it is exactly the same situation, why are so many things so much different then? Maybe because it is a completely different situation? And also, because of wrong things the US did we as people can't blame Russia for invading a part of another country and literally steal it with all the resourses? What kind of logic is that??
So again, I will post this simple thing: an agreement signed on Dec. 5, 1994, by the United States, Britain, Russia (!!!) and Ukraine, promising to recognize Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons at the time.
(edited)
I have seen that 'true' of yours many more times. I will tell you this, because you think it is true doesn't mean it is true.
And if it is exactly the same situation, why are so many things so much different then? Maybe because it is a completely different situation? And also, because of wrong things the US did we as people can't blame Russia for invading a part of another country and literally steal it with all the resourses? What kind of logic is that??
So again, I will post this simple thing: an agreement signed on Dec. 5, 1994, by the United States, Britain, Russia (!!!) and Ukraine, promising to recognize Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons at the time.
(edited)
The situation is different that in Kosovo it took negotiations and they failed. In Crimea was area just occupied without any negotiations or demands.
But anyway, its still only argumenting "that murder was freed so I have right to kill"
(edited)
But anyway, its still only argumenting "that murder was freed so I have right to kill"
(edited)
I'm not saying what Russia did was right. I'm saying the moral high ground of the NATO members is non-existing.
It's like a thief #1 that stole from a house yesterday sees another thief #2 today and tells him that theft is wrong. Yes, theft is wrong, but thief #1 has no credibility to say that.
That is exactly what for instance Charles is doing. He's defending the NATO-bombings on Yugoslavia while being outraged by the Russian annexation of Crimea. It is inconsistent. Which is his trademark I suppose.
It's like a thief #1 that stole from a house yesterday sees another thief #2 today and tells him that theft is wrong. Yes, theft is wrong, but thief #1 has no credibility to say that.
That is exactly what for instance Charles is doing. He's defending the NATO-bombings on Yugoslavia while being outraged by the Russian annexation of Crimea. It is inconsistent. Which is his trademark I suppose.
"Russia does not want to further divide the territory of Ukraine. We do not claim the right to the lands beyond the Ukrainian Crimea" - said Putin.
***********
Deja vu, accurate words of Hitler in 1938 after seizure of Sudety mountains "Sudetenland".
(edited)
***********
Deja vu, accurate words of Hitler in 1938 after seizure of Sudety mountains "Sudetenland".
(edited)
Exactly! He's saying that agreement signed on Dec. 5, 1994 is must to be followed, but breaking UN Chapter that every member has signed is somehow OK??! And the only argument he has is that "it is completely different", and that I am a dumb and "too emotionally connected". It really doesn't matter if I am emotionally connected or not, cause everything I said is the fact, absolutely verifiable, but he refused or ignored them.
Well I recognise differences of these events. Man can judge morale beyond law.
I'm not saying there are no differences. I'm saying those differences do not matter when looking at international law. You can only do that through the UN Security Council. Period. All other invasions are a violation of international law. Regardless of the morale you think is behind that law.
lol
dude you are fanatic, you cant talk with logic
dude you are fanatic, you cant talk with logic
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.
I said I was sure that it had not been president of Syria but somebody else. I blamed US cos it was very probably that they did it. They organize most of the problems in last 20 years. All the world can see that. But... the fact that it was not president who was guilty remain, what was changed is just author. And, as very few people here, I can fix my opinion if I find out that my previous statement was wrong.
(btw, that info was not in any news, it was my personal estimate :-) )
But nobody can said that US is there not involved. US is making there big troubles for tens and tens years and the sad fact that Saudi want just abuse aggressive US policy and its govermnet by starting a war cos chem. attack arranged against president is very sad. But US policy for last tens years is so clear that I understand that even some Saudies want abuse US for own purpose. So US are involved too, just not directly.
I said I was sure that it had not been president of Syria but somebody else. I blamed US cos it was very probably that they did it. They organize most of the problems in last 20 years. All the world can see that. But... the fact that it was not president who was guilty remain, what was changed is just author. And, as very few people here, I can fix my opinion if I find out that my previous statement was wrong.
(btw, that info was not in any news, it was my personal estimate :-) )
But nobody can said that US is there not involved. US is making there big troubles for tens and tens years and the sad fact that Saudi want just abuse aggressive US policy and its govermnet by starting a war cos chem. attack arranged against president is very sad. But US policy for last tens years is so clear that I understand that even some Saudies want abuse US for own purpose. So US are involved too, just not directly.