Ron Paul: Crimea Secedes. So What?...

[paulitician]

I think it's pretty funny the meddling Brits are gonna have their own Secession issues pretty soon. Scotland might just give them the boot. That's gonna be very interesting. Stay tuned.

That's not going to be allowed to happen.

What will Great Britain do to try and prevent it from happening? My guess is, a lot of bribes and some intimidation. I'm rootin for ole Scotland. To Hell with the Brits.

 

[Machaut]

Actually I have. Have you? Has Ron Paul? And if so does he not understand what everybody else does?

>> With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say.

The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer.

Any mark in one of the boxes is regarded as a "Da" vote. Ballot papers will be regarded as spoiled if a voter fills in both boxes or indeed does not fill in either.

Those who stay away will also not influence the outcome, since the result will simply be based on the option preferred by a majority of those voting. <<
-- Crimea Vote Doesn't Offer 'No' Option For Joining Russia

In other words they only needed one vote to win.

Apparently some on this side of the pond voted "Duh".

"Analysts say." How wonderful.

For the millionth time, the choices on the ballot were:
1. “Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a citizen of the Russian Federation?”’
2. “Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine?”
Huffington Post (tangentially, this is a terrible source as any substantive content it has is merely copied and pasted from other sites; please try to use a real news service) has it completely wrong. This is made clear when you read the options themselves. Option 2, the "no" vote, was to restore the old Constitution AND, AND, ANDANDAND, Crimea's status as part of Ukraine.

From your article: "The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine" This is exactly what that second option is. How can you possible read the ballot's actual words and believe that "restore Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine" somehow means "join Russia"?

HuffPo's quoting Reuters. Read the byline. This was just a quick link to what I already knew from other sources.

NYTimes: "Retaining Crimea’s current status, which provides for more limited autonomy from the central government in Kiev, is not an option, which may help explain why the Crimean Tatars have refused to take part in the voting. " --- That would have been the 'no' vote.

Telegraph: "Option one was to reunify with Russia. Option two was to declare de facto independence from the rest of Ukraine. Option three – to remain as part of Ukraine as before – did not have a box."

CBC: ”The ballot actually doesn't give an option to stay in Ukraine," said CBC's Susan Ormiston, reporting from Simferopol in central Crimea. "The second option is to vote for an autonomous Crimea ... so the result is almost decidedly clear that this part of Ukraine will vote to go for Russia today."

Again: How can you possibly read the ballot's actual words and believe that "restore Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine" somehow means "join Russia"?

And I wasn't trying to discount your article due to its source, I was merely saying that Huffington Post isn't an actual news service, they're people who watch actual news services and copy and paste articles from there. When an analysis is wrong, as theirs is, it doesn't matter how many more legitimate sources are parroting the same thing. Use your own eyes and answer my question: How can you possibly read the ballot's actual words and believe that "restore Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine" somehow means "join Russia"?

 

[paulitician]

The thing is, what are you liberal and neo-con dipshits gonna do about Putin and Russia. What is your plan?

Whine about him being a 'Hitler" and then waste several $Billions in Tax Dollars on another senseless misadventure. That's my guess anyway.

 

[tinydancer]

Actually I have. Have you? Has Ron Paul? And if so does he not understand what everybody else does?

>> With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say.

The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer.

Any mark in one of the boxes is regarded as a "Da" vote. Ballot papers will be regarded as spoiled if a voter fills in both boxes or indeed does not fill in either.

Those who stay away will also not influence the outcome, since the result will simply be based on the option preferred by a majority of those voting. <<
-- Crimea Vote Doesn't Offer 'No' Option For Joining Russia

In other words they only needed one vote to win.

Apparently some on this side of the pond voted "Duh".

"Analysts say." How wonderful.

For the millionth time, the choices on the ballot were:
1. “Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a citizen of the Russian Federation?”’
2. “Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine?”
Huffington Post (tangentially, this is a terrible source as any substantive content it has is merely copied and pasted from other sites; please try to use a real news service) has it completely wrong. This is made clear when you read the options themselves. Option 2, the "no" vote, was to restore the old Constitution AND, AND, ANDANDAND, Crimea's status as part of Ukraine.

From your article: "The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine" This is exactly what that second option is. How can you possible read the ballot's actual words and believe that "restore Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine" somehow means "join Russia"?

HuffPo's quoting Reuters. Read the byline. This was just a quick link to what I already knew from other sources.

NYTimes: "Retaining Crimea’s current status, which provides for more limited autonomy from the central government in Kiev, is not an option, which may help explain why the Crimean Tatars have refused to take part in the voting. " --- That would have been the 'no' vote.

Telegraph: "Option one was to reunify with Russia. Option two was to declare de facto independence from the rest of Ukraine. Option three – to remain as part of Ukraine as before – did not have a box."

CBC: ”The ballot actually doesn't give an option to stay in Ukraine," said CBC's Susan Ormiston, reporting from Simferopol in central Crimea. "The second option is to vote for an autonomous Crimea ... so the result is almost decidedly clear that this part of Ukraine will vote to go for Russia today."

Don't you and others understand #2? Did you only read the headlines that misrepresented the referendum?

What part of stay part of the Ukraine doesn't anyone ******* understand?

“Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine?”

 

[Katzndogz]

Russians might have given up their claim, but they could not force the Russians to give up their Russian identity.

You know that the Sudentenland issue was resolved after WWII by Czechoslovokia removing all ethnic Germans. If you want a comparison the resolution is, you cannot take a person's ethnic identity against their will. In America we expect them to give it up voluntarily.

well the point is/was (over take a step's head) is that post-WWII rules were changed via accords to the Geneva Conventions, and Russia signed on. Just because a population has "an identity" is not grounds to redraw borders. The same rules apply to the US and Mexico, or Native Americans, or Russians.

The exceptions are self defense and human rights abuses against a native population.

Putin cites to US hypcrisy in Iraq. There's no doubt W lied about self defense and Iraq, but to give him his due he was trying to build democracy, but unfortunately he listened to some Zionist neocolonialists who viewed intl law differently than his father, and perhaps every other sane person.

Still, if borders are not involate, we have returned to 1938. Though Putin is not Hitler. Mussolini perhaps.

No one is changing the borders and imposing that on an unwilling population. Venice wants to be free of Italy. Should we send in a few aircraft carrier because the borders can't be redrawn? We sent in military to make sure Kosovo could redraw new borders. We cannot decide what another country, another people, should do because their borders are what the US decides those borders should be. And we are being pretty arbitrary about it.

 

[paulitician]

Seriously peeps, is a country like Great Britain really a country that should be judging others on issues like this? I can see why Great Britain is calling Referendums 'illegal' these days. Scotland could be giving them the boot real soon. What will they do to prevent that from happening? My guess is, almost anything. When they give Ireland and Scotland back, we'll talk. Till then, they're full of shite.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Seriously peeps, is a country like Great Britain really a country that should be judging others on issues like this? I can see why Great Britain is calling Referendums 'illegal' these days. Scotland could be giving them the boot real soon. What will they do to prevent that from happening? My guess is, almost anything. When they give Ireland and Scotland back, we'll talk. Till then, they're full of shite.

Statism is built off from shameless hypocrisy. There is plenty of it from all sides on this issue.

 

[tinydancer]

The thing is, what are you liberal and neo-con dipshits gonna do about Putin and Russia. What is your plan?

I'm more a HW type conservative in for affairs, but I think the sanctions are the right way to go. Over the next couple of decades, the EU needs to get off Russia's carbon energy tit. Then Russia can decide whether it wants to remain an 19th century wannabe empire that can't feed itself or join the world.

Why are we involved in this bullshit? Honestly. This is the EU and their doing. They wanted the goons that took over, let them pay for them.

And by the way if you really believe that they can't feed themselves or haven't joined the world you must be googling the USSR and breadlines.

Sheesh. Get a grip.

 

[bendog]

Russians might have given up their claim, but they could not force the Russians to give up their Russian identity.

You know that the Sudentenland issue was resolved after WWII by Czechoslovokia removing all ethnic Germans. If you want a comparison the resolution is, you cannot take a person's ethnic identity against their will. In America we expect them to give it up voluntarily.

well the point is/was (over take a step's head) is that post-WWII rules were changed via accords to the Geneva Conventions, and Russia signed on. Just because a population has "an identity" is not grounds to redraw borders. The same rules apply to the US and Mexico, or Native Americans, or Russians.

The exceptions are self defense and human rights abuses against a native population.

Putin cites to US hypcrisy in Iraq. There's no doubt W lied about self defense and Iraq, but to give him his due he was trying to build democracy, but unfortunately he listened to some Zionist neocolonialists who viewed intl law differently than his father, and perhaps every other sane person.

Still, if borders are not involate, we have returned to 1938. Though Putin is not Hitler. Mussolini perhaps.

No one is changing the borders and imposing that on an unwilling population. Venice wants to be free of Italy. Should we send in a few aircraft carrier because the borders can't be redrawn? We sent in military to make sure Kosovo could redraw new borders. We cannot decide what another country, another people, should do because their borders are what the US decides those borders should be. And we are being pretty arbitrary about it.

Italy is well equipped to deal with venice. Let me know if they vote to get back together with France, though

 

[tinydancer]

Seriously peeps, is a country like Great Britain really a country that should be judging others on issues like this? I can see why Great Britain is calling Referendums 'illegal' these days. Scotland could be giving them the boot real soon. What will they do to prevent that from happening? My guess is, almost anything. When they give Ireland and Scotland back, we'll talk. Till then, they're full of shite.

I was just reading comments by the President of Argentina and she came out swinging at the hypocrisy of the players involved in condemning the Crimean referendum.

She brought up how the Falklands just last year held a referendum to stay part of the UK and how by international law the world has to abide by the peoples decision despite the fact that the Falklands are disputed territory.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

The thing is, what are you liberal and neo-con dipshits gonna do about Putin and Russia. What is your plan?

So much hostility that is unwarranted.

To answer your question, there is nothing, absolutely nothing anyone here can do except talk, debate and argue over what is happening. We elect people to deal with this stuff and unfortunately, we elected a jackass from a pool of jackasses to handle this.

As to what our leaders will do? Who the hell knows but we can be sure it will be the wrong thing. There is no right answer and there isn't anything we can do short of war. Hope and pray our leaders stay out of it and let Europe handle it, which they won't because of the Natural Gas Europe gets from Russia.

I feel sorry for the people though.

 

[Ame®icano]

The thing is, what are you liberal and neo-con dipshits gonna do about Putin and Russia. What is your plan?

Whine about him being a 'Hitler" and then waste several $Billions in Tax Dollars on another senseless misadventure. That's my guess anyway.

I completely agree with Ron Paul here. It's not our problem.

And you're right. Every time there is some crisis that doesn't go our way, there is parallel to Hitler invoked. Far from Milosevic or Gaddafi or Assad to be nice guys, now we labeling Putin the same way. Why? Because people generally hate Nazis. In every western European country there is some nationalistic party and they all got hammered by public. Now they have Ukrainian Svoboda Party (nationalist) parading in Kiev with Swastikas and we have senator McCain sympathizing with them. What?

When Serbian province of Kosovo had referendum of separating from Serbia, we recognized their choice right away. We did the same when all those former Soviet Republics separated from Soviet Union. Why this is different? Oh, we don't like the outcome...

 

[Nutz]

Seriously peeps, is a country like Great Britain really a country that should be judging others on issues like this? I can see why Great Britain is calling Referendums 'illegal' these days. Scotland could be giving them the boot real soon. What will they do to prevent that from happening? My guess is, almost anything. When they give Ireland and Scotland back, we'll talk. Till then, they're full of shite.

I was just reading comments by the President of Argentina and she came out swinging at the hypocrisy of the players involved in condemning the Crimean referendum.

She brought up how the Falklands just last year held a referendum to stay part of the UK and how by international law the world has to abide by the peoples decision despite the fact that the Falklands are disputed territory.

Argentina...really? LOL.

 

[paulitician]

The U.S. and Great Britain love Referendums when they feel they can benefit from them. Otherwise, everyone's a 'Hitler' and they're 'illegal.' I have a feeling the Brits aren't too happy about Scotland's coming Referendum. All i can say is...GO SCOTLAND!!

 

[Unkotare]

The new Ukrainian government started making threats about "hurr durr we gon cut off yo gas n yo lights n yo water," so Russia stepped in to help protect the Crimeans. Theirs is a mission of protection; recall that at one point they occupied a Ukrainian village with an essential gas plant sending energy to Crimea, and once they'd checked out the situation and seen that there were no violent thugs rioting in the streets, they withdrew from the village and merely guarded the plant, ensuring that the non-elected Ukrainian regime couldn't intimidate voters by cutting off their utilities.

"Stepped in to help protect" Can you guess who said something very similar around 60 years ago?


Hundreds of people died when Russia used energy to extort the Ukraine and bring them to heel. Putin was testing the waters then, but we had a real president he knew he could only **** with so much. Now however...

 

[tinydancer]

The thing is, what are you liberal and neo-con dipshits gonna do about Putin and Russia. What is your plan?

So much hostility that is unwarranted.

To answer your question, there is nothing, absolutely nothing anyone here can do except talk, debate and argue over what is happening. We elect people to deal with this stuff and unfortunately, we elected a jackass from a pool of jackasses to handle this.

As to what our leaders will do? Who the hell knows but we can be sure it will be the wrong thing. There is no right answer and there isn't anything we can do short of war. Hope and pray our leaders stay out of it and let Europe handle it, which they won't because of the Natural Gas Europe gets from Russia.

I feel sorry for the people though.

Oh don't feel sorry for the people of Crimea. They are now safe from the goons in Kiev. Crimea to begin with is 60% ethnic Russian. The vote was a no brainer.

The new whackjobs in charge in Kiev are seriously anti Russian to the point that one of the first bills they put thru was to ban the Russian language. It was vetoed by the President under pressure from the UN.

One of the mandates of Svoboda's party platform was to strip Crimea of its autonomous state.

Oh and it must be pointed out they have been anti Russian long before this conflict. Oh and they are anti Jew. And uber nationalist Ukrainians who believe in an "ethnically pure Ukraine".

So don't feel sorry for the people of Crimea. They are now protected from the radicals in Kiev.

 

[bendog]

The thing is, what are you liberal and neo-con dipshits gonna do about Putin and Russia. What is your plan?

So much hostility that is unwarranted.

To answer your question, there is nothing, absolutely nothing anyone here can do except talk, debate and argue over what is happening. We elect people to deal with this stuff and unfortunately, we elected a jackass from a pool of jackasses to handle this.

As to what our leaders will do? Who the hell knows but we can be sure it will be the wrong thing. There is no right answer and there isn't anything we can do short of war. Hope and pray our leaders stay out of it and let Europe handle it, which they won't because of the Natural Gas Europe gets from Russia.

I feel sorry for the people though.

The ethnic minority in the crimea will suffer, as have the pro-democracy "disappeared." The maj will get what they want, at least short term. In the Ukraine, it seems that a largely socialized economy will be forced to move in the direction of Poland and the Czech Rep. Even assuming the population wants this, there will be short term deprivations in exchange for, possible, long term growth.

In the US, "both parties" tend to look at each new govt as a new card deal in a game of poker. That's really illusory. Obama's response is no different that W's ... after W put the troops in Iraq. Whoever succeeds Obama will have little other choice.

Long term, Russia can no more establish perpetutal prosperity with petro dollars than can the Saudis.

 

[paulitician]

And what about those 'Hitlers' in Venice and Scotland? What do we do about them? Stay tuned.

 

[tinydancer]

The new Ukrainian government started making threats about "hurr durr we gon cut off yo gas n yo lights n yo water," so Russia stepped in to help protect the Crimeans. Theirs is a mission of protection; recall that at one point they occupied a Ukrainian village with an essential gas plant sending energy to Crimea, and once they'd checked out the situation and seen that there were no violent thugs rioting in the streets, they withdrew from the village and merely guarded the plant, ensuring that the non-elected Ukrainian regime couldn't intimidate voters by cutting off their utilities.

"Stepped in to help protect" Can you guess who said something very similar around 60 years ago?


Hundreds of people died when Russia used energy to extort the Ukraine and bring them to heel. Putin was testing the waters then, but we had a real president he knew he could only **** with so much. Now however...

Just an FYI. The reason the Russians had to turn off the taps in the mid 2000's was because the Ukraine was siphoning off and storing fuel destined for the EU. True story. Even a lawsuit against the Ukraine by I believe it was Sweden.

And you must remember that Russia was allowed up to 25,000 troops in Crimea. Huge naval base.

And you bet your sweet bippy Putin was going to protect his naval base in Crimea. I would expect no less of America if Qatar was overthrown by radicals and your only base in the middle east and your people were potentially threatened.

President Bush would have handled this situation quite differently. Diplomacy.Behind the scenes.

Not chest thumping and banty rooster strutting like what we saw from the punks from Chicago on the Potomac.

This is what we get with "not ready for prime time players". And I don't know if the diplomatic rift can ever be healed at this point.

 

[bendog]

The new Ukrainian government started making threats about "hurr durr we gon cut off yo gas n yo lights n yo water," so Russia stepped in to help protect the Crimeans. Theirs is a mission of protection; recall that at one point they occupied a Ukrainian village with an essential gas plant sending energy to Crimea, and once they'd checked out the situation and seen that there were no violent thugs rioting in the streets, they withdrew from the village and merely guarded the plant, ensuring that the non-elected Ukrainian regime couldn't intimidate voters by cutting off their utilities.

"Stepped in to help protect" Can you guess who said something very similar around 60 years ago?


Hundreds of people died when Russia used energy to extort the Ukraine and bring them to heel. Putin was testing the waters then, but we had a real president he knew he could only **** with so much. Now however...

Just an FYI. The reason the Russians had to turn off the taps in the mid 2000's was because the Ukraine was siphoning off and storing fuel destined for the EU. True story. Even a lawsuit against the Ukraine by I believe it was Sweden.

And you must remember that Russia was allowed up to 25,000 troops in Crimea. Huge naval base.

And you bet your sweet bippy Putin was going to protect his naval base in Crimea. I would expect no less of America if Qatar was overthrown by radicals and your only base in the middle east and your people were potentially threatened.

President Bush would have handled this situation quite differently. Diplomacy.Behind the scenes.

Not chest thumping and banty rooster strutting like what we saw from the punks from Chicago on the Potomac.

This is what we get with "not ready for prime time players". And I don't know if the diplomatic rift can ever be healed at this point.

W was a sheer genius with Georgia. Not. "I looked into his soul."