By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should a part of a country have the right to be independent? (also read OP)

 

Should a part of your country have the right to be independent or merge with another country?

Yes 33 46.48%
 
Maybe/No opinion 12 16.90%
 
No 25 35.21%
 
Total:70
LiquorandGunFun on 26 March 2014
Mr Khan said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
Yes. Its hard to take another position when I support Taiwan. However, I dont think its going to stop with Crimea. Putin has big plans beyond Crimea now that they laughed their asses off at King Barry.

Obama has nothing to do with this. Bush didn't do a damn thing when Putin invaded Georgia, and that was an actual, killing-people invasion.

The costs are simply too high, unless Russia does something truly egregious like invade Ukraine proper (which would have the Poles screaming for intervention, as that'd mean Russian tanks on their borders once again).


And Bush isnt president anymore.

Instead its the PTA vs the KGB.



 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 March 2014
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
If a majority of people in a particular region want independence from any country then shall be. The Crimean people overwhelmingly voted to join Russia and yet the west sanctions them, WTF?

It's weird really since a country is sort of a fictional entity and only exists to divide different groups up. Just look at how the borders in Europe have changed in the last 1000 years, it's the same land at the end of it. Just divided differently.


Are you actually sure of that?

More people voted to join Crimea then people have voted for Saddam Hussein in the past.

A joining with russia was expected to win, but not anywhere near that sort of margin, and the only observers were specifically handpicked crimean ones.

 

The pot was almost definitly somehwat cooked.

 

Additionally, what about the Ethnic tartars and others in the area who are afraid of ethnic cleansing and other mistreatement from the Russians lik they suffered in the past?

 

Territories should be allowed to cede from one nation to another even if there is a likelyhood that minority groups will be abused?

 

And the final kicker....

 

a Majority of Palestinians in East Jersualem would rather be part of Israel then Palestine.  Should East Jersualem become the undivided captial of Israel?

The wonky numbers in Crimea are at least partially explicable in that the Crimeans allowed Russian citizen-residents to vote, so people who might not even have been registered when it was still Ukrainian, leading to turnout beyond possible levels.

Though i agree it was probably forged, i also think that the majority of Crimean permanent residents (combining Russian and Ukrainian citizens living there) did want to join Russia.


Oh I agree with that, although it was likely forged because well... a one time mere majority vote isn't exactly what i'd think reasonable people would suggest be good enough to cede.

Even if you support the rights of any area to cede from anywhere, a super majority seems like a bare minium required.  Not to mention the rights of the minority and all kinds of other problems.



Mr Khan on 26 March 2014
LiquorandGunFun said:
Mr Khan said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
Yes. Its hard to take another position when I support Taiwan. However, I dont think its going to stop with Crimea. Putin has big plans beyond Crimea now that they laughed their asses off at King Barry.

Obama has nothing to do with this. Bush didn't do a damn thing when Putin invaded Georgia, and that was an actual, killing-people invasion.

The costs are simply too high, unless Russia does something truly egregious like invade Ukraine proper (which would have the Poles screaming for intervention, as that'd mean Russian tanks on their borders once again).


And Bush isnt president anymore.

Instead its the PTA vs the KGB.

Really don't know why i'm bothering when it's obvious your opinions are set, but what, hypothetically, do you think Bush would have done in this situation? Or McCain, or Romney?

Sure, McCain would've talked tougher (and not being president hasn't stopped him from talking tough about this, and Georgia at the time, anyway), but none of them would do anything substantive to stop this, which has everything to do with Ukraine being out of our sphere of interest (at least now that they no longer have nukes) and nothing to do with comparative personalities.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 26 March 2014
Mr Khan said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
Yes. Its hard to take another position when I support Taiwan. However, I dont think its going to stop with Crimea. Putin has big plans beyond Crimea now that they laughed their asses off at King Barry.

Obama has nothing to do with this. Bush didn't do a damn thing when Putin invaded Georgia, and that was an actual, killing-people invasion.

The costs are simply too high, unless Russia does something truly egregious like invade Ukraine proper (which would have the Poles screaming for intervention, as that'd mean Russian tanks on their borders once again).

Were it me... I'd move some troops into Ukraine proper.  Just to be safe.  (Note, but not annex Ukraine or fuck with them in any way.)

It's pretty much just the cold war again, where whoever gets their first wins.

Then again, with the extreme right wing leaders suddenly being killed off... maybe it'd be backfrie.

 

Theoretically, Obama if he cared enough probably could of marched troops right into Crimea and took back the area by force.  The Russian economy is in some dire straits.  Russia really doesn't have anything to back up keeping Crimea outside the fact that the west wouldn't think of doing that.  (And no Republicans wouldn't do it either other guys.)

 



LiquorandGunFun on 26 March 2014
Mr Khan said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
Mr Khan said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
Yes. Its hard to take another position when I support Taiwan. However, I dont think its going to stop with Crimea. Putin has big plans beyond Crimea now that they laughed their asses off at King Barry.

Obama has nothing to do with this. Bush didn't do a damn thing when Putin invaded Georgia, and that was an actual, killing-people invasion.

The costs are simply too high, unless Russia does something truly egregious like invade Ukraine proper (which would have the Poles screaming for intervention, as that'd mean Russian tanks on their borders once again).


And Bush isnt president anymore.

Instead its the PTA vs the KGB.

Really don't know why i'm bothering when it's obvious your opinions are set, but what, hypothetically, do you think Bush would have done in this situation? Or McCain, or Romney?

Sure, McCain would've talked tougher (and not being president hasn't stopped him from talking tough about this, and Georgia at the time, anyway), but none of them would do anything substantive to stop this, which has everything to do with Ukraine being out of our sphere of interest (at least now that they no longer have nukes) and nothing to do with comparative personalities.

I have no faith in this Bozo in office. his fictional red line in syria, he didnt even take the lead from kicking russia our of the g8. its embarassing when the french and germans have more balls in dealing with the bully putin. To bring up hypotheticals with mccain and whatever bush did or didnt do over 5 years ago means nothing in the now.



 

Around the Network
GamechaserBE on 31 March 2014

At this point we should get rid of the term countries, I feel in the Eu that borders are fading away and all the cities are looking more the same..



Cobretti2 on 31 March 2014

no cause what we will end up with is every state and/or to the extreme city wanting to be its own country lol.