Obama signs executive order that gives him the ability to sanction Russian financial services, energ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305645]USA -> Illegally Invades Iraq, replaces legitimate sovereign government with a puppet regime on trumped up pretexted that was completely false. EU/USA/West -> Stops Serbian military intervention in Kosovo and allows it to pursue independence even though it wasn't legal in Serbia. Lauded as a legal and legitimate move by the majority of the west and other stupid stooges. USA/NATO -> Creates nonsense justification for intervention in Libya and attacks it in a aggressive campaign of basically terror bombings. The West is being hypocritical as usual, Putin is obviously in the right here, at least in the world the US helped to create.[/QUOTE] So when was the last time the US annexed something

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44305151]Fuck international law. Instead, ask the question: Is it ethical? And if what Russia did is somehow unethical, please explain why.[/QUOTE] lmao if nobody gave a fuck about international laws you'd see way more unethical shit happening

Maybe the people in Crimea wanted to join Russia. I mean, the majority of them are ethnic Russians that speak Russian. By joining Russia, their wages and pensions also increase. Russia has a much stronger economy.

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305680]That's a idiotic violation of Godwins law, and I'd like to point out that Hitler's annexations were completely legitimate as well.[/QUOTE] Even a blind man sees you are trolling

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44305681]So when was the last time the US annexed something[/QUOTE] 2004 technically, and regardless of if it's an annexation or not, it's still an illegal military intervention.

I'm a Ukranian, living in America. And I speak Russian.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44305696]Even a blind man sees you are trolling[/QUOTE] Just because I hold an unpopular opinion doesn't mean I'm trolling, do you actually have an argument to make?

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305680]That's a idiotic violation of Godwins law, and I'd like to point out that Hitler's annexations were completely legitimate as well.[/QUOTE] You know that is not actually a rule constraining debate, right?

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305699]2004 technically, and regardless of if it's an annexation or not, it's still an illegal military intervention.[/QUOTE] What did the US annex in 2004?

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305645]USA -> Illegally Invades Iraq, replaces legitimate sovereign government with a puppet regime on trumped up pretexted that was completely false. EU/USA/West -> Stops Serbian military intervention in Kosovo and allows it to pursue independence even though it wasn't legal in Serbia. Lauded as a legal and legitimate move by the majority of the west and other stupid stooges. USA/NATO -> Creates nonsense justification for intervention in Libya and attacks it in a aggressive campaign of basically terror bombings. The West is being hypocritical as usual, Putin is obviously in the right here, at least in the world the US helped to create.[/QUOTE] "Usa did bad things, so therefore Putin has justification" Stop the retardness right now

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305699]2004 technically, and regardless of if it's an annexation or not, it's still an illegal military intervention.[/QUOTE] Uh the UN ruled it was legal ex post facto so it wasn't an illegal war. Plus second resoultion not being needed in some peoples view..

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305704]Just because I hold an unpopular opinion doesn't mean I'm trolling, do you actually have an argument to make?[/QUOTE] I already did. Proof provided to me was that it is "ethical" and "fuck international law"

[QUOTE=Megafan;44305708]You know that is not actually a rule constraining debate, right?[/QUOTE] Regardless, it's still a stupid point especially considering Hitler's annexations were legitimate.

[QUOTE=Polyethylene;44305700]I'm a Ukranian, living in America. And I speak Russian.[/QUOTE] So does this mean that Russia will becoming to protect you soon?

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305719]Hitler's annexations were legitimate.[/QUOTE] jesus christ

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44305718]I already did. Proof provided to me was that it is "ethical" and "fuck international law"[/QUOTE] I didn't make that post though, also what? [editline]21st March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Laserbeams;44305725]jesus christ[/QUOTE] Any argument or evidence to the contrary?

[QUOTE=Jsm;44305723]So does this mean that Russia will becoming to protect you soon?[/QUOTE] Haha, very clever. Like I haven't heard that one before.

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305726]I didn't make that post though, also what?[/QUOTE] Give proof that Nazi Germany's and Russia's annexations are legit if you are so sure of it

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44305725]jesus christ[/QUOTE] Tell me, is there a huge difference between Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine. From my understanding there is. And most of the economy/infrastructure is in Eastern Ukraine.

I foresee a rise in the price of titanium in the near future.

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305680]That's a idiotic violation of Godwins law, and [B]I'd like to point out that Hitler's annexations were completely legitimate as well.[/B][/QUOTE] Yeah. I know that. I never mentioned anything regarding legitimacy. But in all honesty, Hitler only got that semi-legitimately because most of Europe was not terribly interesting in getting into another world war. Look at it now, Most of Europe doesn't want war so they aren't going after Russia at the moment. (Not suggesting that Europe's about to go into a world war.)

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44305725]jesus christ[/QUOTE] If you combined jeagerfrau and willtheoct in some kind of horrifying experiment you could make the most amazing shit poster of all time :v: Seriously? Hitler's annexatons were legitimate?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44305733]Give proof that Nazi Germany's and Russia's annexations are legit if you are so sure of it[/QUOTE] Hitler was elected by the German people to begin a campaign of reacquiring lost territory or land with majority German populations to former Greater Germany. The annexation of Austria was legitimate as the majority of Austrians were in support of this move, Austria was majority German, when he annexed it there was almost completely no resistance. The Sudetenland was a majority German area that was being oppressed by the Czechs, the Czechs implemented marital law and changed the Constitution to ensure the Germans couldn't succeed. The later annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia was because the remaining state was a security concern, which is an apparently alright justification in the eyes of the US, these types of justifications were all too common in the early 20th century, so it was a legitimate foreign policy act when looked at in the eyes of the era. [editline]21st March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Elspin;44305785]If you combined jeagerfrau and willtheoct in some kind of horrifying experiment you could make the most amazing shit poster of all time :v: Seriously? Hitler's annexatons were legitimate?[/QUOTE] Yes they were, read my post for proof on it.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44305733]Give proof that Nazi Germany's and Russia's annexations are legit if you are so sure of it[/QUOTE] Well then you need to get into complications of whether an annexation is legitimate only if its ethical or not. The Nazi annexations were legitimate because they had a military, and the other countries... didn't. Unethical but legitimate. My argument is still that while the invasion wasn't ethical, it wasn't [B]that[/B] unethical, and the vote carried out afterwards was completely legitimate. I'd also like to make my personal stance clear: Russia can't do things just because the US did them. The US also shouldn't have done those things. Those are not grounds for rationalizing the actions.

[QUOTE=Polyethylene;44305690]Maybe the people in Crimea wanted to join Russia. I mean, the majority of them are ethnic Russians that speak Russian. By joining Russia, their wages and pensions also increase. Russia has a much stronger economy.[/QUOTE] like its been said, that doesnt give russia the right to invade ukraine

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44305786]Hitler was elected by the German people to begin a campaign of reacquiring lost territory or land with majority German populations to former Greater Germany. The annexation of Austria was legitimate as the majority of Austrians were in support of this move, Austria was majority German, when he annexed it there was almost completely no resistance. The Sudetenland was a majority German area that was being oppressed by the Czechs, the Czechs implemented marital law and changed the Constitution to ensure the Germans couldn't succeed. The later annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia was because the remaining state was a security concern, which is an apparently alright justification in the eyes of the US, these types of justifications were all too common in the early 20th century, so it was a legitimate foreign policy act when looked at in the eyes of the era.[/QUOTE] No no no no no no Don't write about it, show me actual evidence, you know, sources, legitimate ones

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44305802]like its been said, that doesnt give russia the right to invade ukraine[/QUOTE] Except it does, plus the previous treaties Ukraine had were voided by the illegal deposing of the old government.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44305798]Well then you need to get into complications of whether an annexation is legitimate only if its ethical or not. The Nazi annexations were legitimate because they had a military, and the other countries... didn't. Unethical but legitimate. My argument is still that while the invasion wasn't ethical, it wasn't [B]that[/B] unethical, and the vote carried out afterwards was completely legitimate.[/QUOTE] that's not how politics work lmao

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44305812]No no no no no no Don't write about it, show me actual evidence, you know, sources, legitimate ones[/QUOTE] How can I show evidence about something that is subjective, "legitimacy" is subjective. Make a response to the argument or admit that you can't, it's up to you.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44305733]Give proof that Nazi Germany's and Russia's annexations are legit if you are so sure of it[/QUOTE] There was a Coup D'etat in Ukraine... Russia had assets in Crimea including nuclear submarines. I think Russia did the right thing in its own interest. The interim govt in Ukraine freaked out and threw a bitch fit to the rest of the EU. Russia had a contract set with the old government in Ukraine regarding it's military bases. In response to the West, Russia allowed Crimea to vote for independence or annexation. Majority obviously chose Russia because of the better economy, higher wages, higher pensions, ethnicity/language similarities. Everyone is being hysterical. I mean, the United States invaded and occupied both Iraq and Afghanistan. Big fucking whoop. Where was Russia's 'shock and awe' during the occupation? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7iorfwcmeY[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R30cbnkMG3s[/media] It's bullshit.