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

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44304831][url]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579441563920333966[/url] Crimea voted to join Russia. Overwhelmingly. [/QUOTE] Oh hey, that's like Russia keeps voting to elect Putin. Overwhelmingly.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44306162]the problem with russia invading ukraine because crimea not being part of russia being "unethical" is that it sets a dangerous precedent are we supposed to invade countries that do unethical stuff? but doesnt every country do something unethical everyday, at least to a certain extent? whos to say what warrants an invasion and what doesnt? and how do we know countries arent gonna use that reasoning as an excuse to invade nations when in reality they're doing it for economic purposes? and what if the other country resists, is the risk of war really worth it? assuming you're not trolling (unlikely), surely you can see why that would not be a good idea[/QUOTE] That is possibly the best argument I've heard about the situation. Now eventually at some point, the whole world will fall under one single chain of command, but that isn't a bad thing. How we get there is the problem. The reality is countries will acquire others through military means, and the only thing we can do is make sure they're done ethically. When one superpower invades a small country, the other superpowers should stop it, unless the smaller country is fine with being annexed. When the [B]other[/B] superpower tries to stop it, for its own profit, that's when we need to step up and remove the people in charge in that superpower. Rephrase: If superpowers acquire smaller countries and bring them under one chain of command, I see nothing ethically wrong with that, as long as everyone's needs and rights are represented equally. If a people's needs or rights are not represented equally, THAT is when we should step in. [QUOTE=Elspin;44306205]Dude we know you're a gimmick just move on. Trying to troll people into flaming you isn't going to work making outrageous claims that we're brainwashed because we think an illegal invasion of a country's territory was wrong. I'm not saying that having the opinion that russsia is in the right necessarily makes you a gimmick (though it's quite clearly wrong by international law) but you're making it way too obvious with the shit eating grin avatar, low post count, and insanity through the roof posts in multiple threads[/QUOTE] Oh gee, personal attacks. I hate to have to dignify this, but: However you interpret the avatar is your option(I mean nothing by it), Anything I agree with I hit the "agree" button instead of posting "I agree", hence the low post count, and my posts being only things that a majority of people disagree with. Please refrain from demeaning me based on profile options, and instead look at the quality and content of my arguments.

[QUOTE=Sand^;44303134]It's easier and faster to sign an executive order than pushing legislation through congress, especially when they won't fight you on it.[/QUOTE] That's the purpose of our government. It's supposed to be slow and inefficient.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306259]That is possibly the best argument I've heard about the situation. Now eventually at some point, the whole world will fall under one single chain of command, but that isn't a bad thing. How we get there is the problem. The reality is countries will acquire others through military means, and the only thing we can do is make sure they're done ethically. When one superpower invades a small country, the other superpowers should stop it, unless the smaller country is fine with being annexed. When the [B]other[/B] superpower tries to stop it, for its own profit, that's when we need to step up and remove the people in charge in that superpower. Rephrase: If superpowers acquire smaller countries and bring them under one chain of command, I see nothing ethically wrong with that, as long [B]as everyone's needs and rights are represented equally.[/B] If a people's needs or rights are not represented equally, THAT is when we should step in. Oh gee, personal attacks. I hate to have to dignify this, but: However you interpret the avatar is your option(I mean nothing by it), Anything I agree with I hit the "agree" button instead of posting "I agree", hence the low post count, and my posts being only things that a majority of people disagree with. Please refrain from demeaning me based on profile options, and instead look at the quality and content of my arguments.[/QUOTE] my brainwashing says that you are really really really really really really really wrong on the bolded part regarding the annexation of Crimea

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306259]That is possibly the best argument I've heard about the situation. Now eventually at some point, the whole world will fall under one single chain of command, but that isn't a bad thing. How we get there is the problem. The reality is countries will acquire others through military means, and the only thing we can do is make sure they're done ethically. When one superpower invades a small country, the other superpowers should stop it, unless the smaller country is fine with being annexed. When the [B]other[/B] superpower tries to stop it, for its own profit, that's when we need to step up and remove the people in charge in that superpower. Rephrase: If superpowers acquire smaller countries and bring them under one chain of command, I see nothing ethically wrong with that, as long as everyone's needs and rights are represented equally. If a people's needs or rights are not represented equally, THAT is when we should step in.[/QUOTE] The world will not fall under a single chain of command for at least 2-3 centuries, if it even ever would happen. Differing separate countries act as sort of a world system of checks and balances, keeping each other in check and making sure we advance in a way that ensures that no single entity could control the entire world. While the powers of this system were enforced through war in the past, the global economy has made sanctions an easier and less harmful system of enforcement. But ultimately, what gives one country the right to the property of another? Crimea being largely composed of ethnic Russians doesn't give Russia a right to the property. If it were that simple, the U.S. could flood nearby border areas of canada or mexico and annex the property by simply voting on it. This would be a very unstable system.

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44306332]you are really wrong on the bolded part regarding the annexation of Crimea[/QUOTE] That's basically the key thing holding my opinion in place: I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. I wasn't able to find a "total votes" or "percentage of population that voted". Actually I just did. 83% voter turnout. My opinion stands firm. [url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/crimea-votes-to-leave-ukraine-in-secession-referendum-and-join-russia-1.2574719[/url]

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;44306343]Being slow and inefficient only works when you're picking on countries that can't fight back.[/QUOTE] Being slow an inefficient is there to keep the government from fucking over it's own citizens. If they can just ram through anything they want, what's to stop them from passing new laws making them elected for life or removing freedoms?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44306361] But ultimately, what gives one country the right to the property of another? Crimea being largely composed of ethnic Russians doesn't give Russia a right to the property. If it were that simple, the U.S. could flood nearby border areas of canada or mexico and annex the property by simply voting on it. This would be a very unstable system.[/QUOTE] First, a country isn't an entity with rights. It's an organizational system that isn't always clearly defined. Checks and balances apply to who gets to use what rights, too. Obviously if one guy in debt about to lose his house wants to separate, that shouldn't be allowed. And a poor, unpopulated country with an enormous military shouldn't be allowed the rights to invade and tax a rich, populated country. IMO, rights are determined on ethics alone. Ethically, Crimea wants to join Russia. Ethically, the rest of the Ukraine has no say in the matter. If the US were to invade Canada and create a voting system for us on whether or not we wanted to become part of the US, that would be very fair.(Although it would get shot down pretty quickly, we like being neighbors but there's a lot of crazy shit happening down there) US citizens wouldn't be able to vote, of course. This is just the easiest way to determine the correct ethical voter base. And if the US did screw up the voting system, and only 60% of Canadians actually turned up to vote, THEN I would expect the other superpowers to show up and help out. [QUOTE=Matthew0505;44306432]The inefficiency sure didn't help with the PATRIOT act and co.[/QUOTE] Buuuuuut, it stopped SOPA & PIPA(they were gonna pass if not for changes in opinions) and a bunch of other laws that you don't even have to worry about because they weren't imposed by a dictator!

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306365]That's basically the key thing holding my opinion in place: I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. I wasn't able to find a "total votes" or "percentage of population that voted". Actually I just did. 83% voter turnout. My opinion stands firm. [url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/crimea-votes-to-leave-ukraine-in-secession-referendum-and-join-russia-1.2574719[/url][/QUOTE] the options were "Join the Russian Federation   Restore 1992 constitution..." It was either "Join Russia" or "Join Russia later", there wasn't an option to keep the status quo [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014[/url]

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;44306432]The inefficiency sure didn't help with the PATRIOT act and co.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The only time Congress works together is when they want to fuck us over. That's why it's imperative that they don't.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306451]If the US were to invade Canada and create a voting system for us on whether or not we wanted to become part of the US, that would be very fair.(Although it would get shot down pretty quickly, we like being neighbors but there's a lot of crazy shit happening down there) US citizens wouldn't be able to vote, of course. This is just the easiest way to determine the correct ethical voter base. [/QUOTE] No, I mean like a bunch of Americans Immigrating to Canada, all living in the same area, then voting amongst themselves to separate from Canada and become a part of the U.S. You remember how the original settlers of the U.S. displaced the native americans and took their land? You remember how atrocious that was? That's what's happening here, but using modern techniques.

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44306496]the options were "Join the Russian Federation   Restore 1992 constitution..." It was either "Join Russia" or "Join Russia later", there wasn't an option to keep the status quo [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014[/url][/QUOTE] IMO this is the [B]biggest[/B] problem with it, I don't see how a referendum can at all be legit if there is no option to keep the current status quo. [editline]21st March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44306585]No, I mean like a bunch of Americans Immigrating to Canada, all living in the same area, then voting amongst themselves to separate from Canada and become a part of the U.S. You remember how the original settlers of the U.S. displaced the native americans and took their land? You remember how atrocious that was? That's what's happening here, but using modern techniques.[/QUOTE] Its ethnic cleansing plain and simple IMO. By repopulating an area (if that is what they are doing as you propose in your hypothetical argument) they are trying to remove one ethnicity and replace it with another.

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44306496]the options were "Join the Russian Federation   Restore 1992 constitution..." It was either "Join Russia" or "Join Russia later", there wasn't an option to keep the status quo [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014[/url][/QUOTE] That article is two-sided, but I can't seem to find any information that doesn't stem from RT.com. The second option isn't a bad one, from what I can tell. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44306585]No, I mean like a bunch of Americans Immigrating to Canada, all living in the same area, then voting amongst themselves to separate from Canada and become a part of the U.S. You remember how the original settlers of the U.S. displaced the native americans and took their land? You remember how atrocious that was? That's what's happening here, but using modern techniques.[/QUOTE] Right, they'd have to live here for a year to become a Canadian citizen, and if something hasn't gone wrong by then, there's no reason not to treat them equally. The only issues before that can happen, though, is if enough people immigrate to live here, we'll start closing down borders. Then, people who made it in would be forced to adapt to the culture, or they wouldn't be able to hold down a job(and be forced to leave after eviction), or they might get jailed for doing something stupid. But, if they can overcome those obstacles, they fit within the Canadian society and there is no reason not to count their votes. [QUOTE=Jsm;44306593] Its ethnic cleansing plain and simple IMO. By repopulating an area (if that is what they are doing as you propose in your hypothetical argument) they are trying to remove one ethnicity and replace it with another.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.google.ca/search?q=define+ethnic+cleansing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Vb4rU4WPN87Y8geJ14EY"]Your definition is wrong[/URL]

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306684]That article is two-sided, but I can't seem to find any information that doesn't stem from RT.com. The second option isn't a bad one, from what I can tell. [/QUOTE] The second option is terrible because of its ambiguity and they refused to clarify if it meant the amended version or the original version. 24 hours back in 1992 made a huge difference to Ukraine. Its pretty much a cop out option to avoid them doing a yes/no referendum which would have allowed for a return to the status quo. [editline]21st March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=willtheoct;44306684] [URL="https://www.google.ca/search?q=define+ethnic+cleansing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Vb4rU4WPN87Y8geJ14EY"]Your definition is wrong[/URL][/QUOTE] Uh no its commonly agreed that it forcefully removing an ethnicity by filling an area with people of another ethnicity is ethnic cleansing. Its population transfer.

[QUOTE=Jsm;44306698]The second option is terrible because of its ambiguity [/QUOTE] I can agree with that, but if people didn't want either, we would expect a low voter turnout. [QUOTE=Jsm;44306698] Uh no its commonly agreed that it forcefully removing an ethnicity by filling an area with people of another ethnicity is ethnic cleansing. Its population transfer.[/QUOTE] No. Mass expulsion or killing. The only expulsion would be of US citizens to Canada(But that would be a problem in the US, a different problem entirely). The US citizens moving to Canada wouldn't be expelling Canadian citizens, either. I don't really see where you're getting the ideas from.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306684]That article is two-sided, but I can't seem to find any information that doesn't stem from RT.com. The second option isn't a bad one, from what I can tell.[/QUOTE] Are you people trolling or something? The second option isn't a bad one? Really? What? How can there be a referendum that doesn't offer any real choice? But it's still rigged anyway, so who cares

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44306739]Are you people trolling or something? The second option isn't a bad one? Really? What? How can there be a referendum that doesn't offer any real choice? But it's still rigged anyway, so who cares[/QUOTE] If you hadn't noticed it by now half of this thread is him trolling

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306684]That article is two-sided, [/QUOTE] My point still stands

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44306739]Are you people trolling or something? The second option isn't a bad one? Really? What? How can there be a referendum that doesn't offer any real choice? But it's still rigged anyway, so who cares[/QUOTE] This is semantics. No third choice was offered, and depending on who you ask, the second option still kept Crimea as a part of the Ukraine. What's really important is that 83% of the population voted, and from that 83%, 95% of them wanted to join Russia. With such a big deal of a vote, lets say that 10% of non-turnout was from objectors, 1% was "invalid" votes in which people probably put a third option, leaving 6% of the population simply not voting(and we'll assume the opinions of them follow the same ratio). So, stats indicate about 15.15% of the population wanted to stay as a part of the Ukraine OR become independent, and the other 84.85% wanted to join Russia. Even if you make that remaining (generous) 6% into Ukraine supporters, its still overwhelming. Now, the only problem is that these stats can be faked, and unfortunately the only source is RT.com. Nothing I or anyone can say will prove otherwise.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306814]This is semantics. No third choice was offered, and depending on who you ask, the second option still kept Crimea as a part of the Ukraine. What's really important is that 83% of the population voted, and from that 83%, 95% of them wanted to join Russia. With such a big deal of a vote, lets say that 10% of non-turnout was from objectors, 1% was "invalid" votes in which people probably put a third option, leaving 6% of the population simply not voting(and we'll assume the opinions of them follow the same ratio). So, stats indicate about 15.15% of the population wanted to stay as a part of the Ukraine OR become independent, and the other 84.85% wanted to join Russia. Even if you make that remaining (generous) 6% into Ukraine supporters, its still overwhelming. Now, the only problem is that these stats can be faked, and unfortunately the only source is RT.com. Nothing I or anyone can say will prove otherwise.[/QUOTE] But what if I say that the referendum is not legitimate and holds no legal power whatsoever? You can't have a local referendum about secession in Russia

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44306871]But what if I say that the referendum is not legitimate and holds no legal power whatsoever? You can't have a local referendum about secession in Russia[/QUOTE] I don't follow your point. Rephrase? who says it isn't legitimate? is the argument that Russians will impose referendum laws outside their own borders?

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44306902]I don't follow your point. Rephrase?[/QUOTE] The referendum is not legitimate according to both the Ukrainian and Russian constitution, and also according to every constitution ever, because local referendums don't make sense. The Russians wanted moral high ground over Ukraine so they had their fake-ass rigged referendum

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44306933]The referendum is not legitimate according to both the Ukrainian and Russian constitution, and also according to every constitution ever, because local referendums don't make sense. The Russians wanted moral high ground over Ukraine so they had their fake-ass rigged referendum[/QUOTE] Assume rigged all you want, I haven't seen any real evidence for that, aside from suspicions. And again with the laws? laws are meant to make ethics clear; if a law doesn't follow ethics, ignore the law. Constitutions are meaningless, quit basing an argument around "Oh they can't do that because laws are laws are laws and you're not allowed to violate a law"

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44307016]Assume rigged all you want, I haven't seen any real evidence for that, aside from suspicions. And again with the laws? laws are meant to make ethics clear; if a law doesn't follow ethics, ignore the law. Constitutions are meaningless, quit basing an argument around "Oh they can't do that because laws are laws are laws and you're not allowed to violate a law"[/QUOTE] Because Russians in Crimea are totally ethical, right? Like that time when they tortured a Tatar guy to death for protesting? And when threaten Ukrainians and everyone who doesn't want to be in Russia?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44307029]Because Russians in Crimea are totally ethical, right? Like that time when they tortured a Tatar guy to death? And threaten Ukrainians?[/QUOTE] I'm not caught up on these incidents, and while those incidents themselves sound very unethical, there is nothing wrong with the idea of having Russians in Ukraine.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;44307048]I'm not caught up on these incidents, and while those incidents themselves sound very unethical, there is nothing wrong with the idea of having Russians in Ukraine.[/QUOTE] Of course not, I never said that and never will 2:40 for the funeral of the guy killed. I highly recommend watching the whole series though [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoZwWzYBBkc&list=UUZaT_X_mc0BI-djXOlfhqWQ[/media]

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44306933]The referendum is not legitimate according to both the Ukrainian and Russian constitution, and also according to every constitution ever, because local referendums don't make sense. The Russians wanted moral high ground over Ukraine so they had their fake-ass rigged referendum[/QUOTE] And the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government was [b]soo[/b] legitimate according to the Ukrainian constitution...right? Also correct me if I'm wrong but I read that there were international observers from over 20 countries at this vote to make sure it was legitimate.

[QUOTE=mix999;44307282]And the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government was [b]soo[/b] legitimate according to the Ukrainian constitution...right?[/QUOTE] I'm not going to be an apologist for the temporary government, I hate their guts [QUOTE=mix999;44307282]Also correct me if I'm wrong but I read that there were international observers from over 20 countries at this vote to make sure it was legitimate.[/QUOTE] Observers can only observe so much

[QUOTE=mix999;44307282]And the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government was [B]soo[/B] legitimate according to the Ukrainian constitution...right? Also correct me if I'm wrong but I read that there were international observers from over 20 countries at this vote to make sure it was legitimate.[/QUOTE] To be fair they were removed by a vote in parliament, not exactly a violent overthrow in my books. As for the international observers, if VICE are to be believed (and why shouldn't they? they have people on the ground) then they were nearly all hand picked by Russia. They actually interviewed one who claimed to have not seen the military in Crimea at all despite having been there for a few days. So yeah I would take what they saw with a pinch of salt to be honest..

[QUOTE=mix999;44307282]And the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government was [b]soo[/b] legitimate according to the Ukrainian constitution...right? Also correct me if I'm wrong but I read that there were international observers from over 20 countries at this vote to make sure it was legitimate.[/QUOTE] I remember hearing that the observers themselves had Russian bias, the ones that didn't were turned away.