I have problems with it, but it's already history, now the Tatars are 12% of the population.You're the one who keeps dismissing Russia's previous ethnic cleansing of the Tatars as 'historic trivia'. Obviously you have no problems with the concept at least when it's played out by the Russians.
My argument is that current residents of Crimea get to vote on Crimea's future. That's how democracy works everywhere in the world. You are not happy with it, what specifically are you proposing?
Just look at the New York Times' war coverage.http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/u...erage-suggests-new-fox-effect-television.html
MSNBC got inline on Iraq war, just like Fox. Objectivity stops at the water's edge.
I think one could make a compelling moral argument that the 12% Crimean Tatars minority should have a veto over giving the area back to the same country that murdered and forcibly relocated them from a majority down to 12%.You are whining, but you aren't proposing anything. Do you think 12% Crimean Tatars minority should have a veto over the direction of Crimea just because they once upon a time were a majority?
Amen. It's the rebuilding of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the Evil Empire itself. If it's allowed to continue unchecked, we will have World War III, whether it's fought over European nations fighting to avoid being absorbed or once the reformed Russian Empire reaches out beyond Europe.This is not democracy. This is WW2 style military aggression and forcible annexation of neighbouring lands.
He made the claim about how easy it was to tell the difference between Tatars and Russians. I'm a bit surprised that he didn't mention 'swarthy skin' or 'hooked noses' or some such nonsense.
He's deliberately marginalized the Tatars and their issues and has acted as an outright apologist for their previous ethnic cleansing by the Russians by insisting that it's 'trivial history'.
I figure anything I can do to show this person for what they are is fair play.
My argument is that current residents of Crimea get to vote on Crimea's future. That's how democracy works everywhere in the world. You are not happy with it, what specifically are you proposing?
My argument is that current residents of Crimea get to vote on Crimea's future. That's how democracy works everywhere in the world. You are not happy with it, what specifically are you proposing?
And my argument is that if you're only a majority in a place because you murdered and deported everyone else that you don't get to invoke self determination.
...
And my argument is that if you're only a majority in a place because you murdered and deported everyone else that you don't get to invoke self determination. By your logic once the nazis had finished murdering, enslaving, and deporting the people in Eastern Europe they could have then just held an election and suddenly claimed that their occupation was the result of democracy and self determination.
As Werepossum said, you don't get to dismiss a group because they are only 12% of the population if the reason they are 12% of the population is that you murdered or deported them all. The fact that such an argument is gravely immoral, from a practical sense it incentivizes genocide.
The Cherokee Nation would love to have more people like you.
At least you're being consistent. Or are you....
The Cherokee Nation would love to have more people like you.
At least you're being consistent. Or are you....
And my argument is that if you're only a majority in a place because you murdered and deported everyone else that you don't get to invoke self determination. By your logic once the nazis had finished murdering, enslaving, and deporting the people in Eastern Europe they could have then just held an election and suddenly claimed that their occupation was the result of democracy and self determination.
As Werepossum said, you don't get to dismiss a group because they are only 12% of the population if the reason they are 12% of the population is that you murdered or deported them all. The fact that such an argument is gravely immoral, from a practical sense it incentivizes genocide.
Who murdered and deported everyone else? Was it the actual people currently living in Crimea? It was 70 years ago.
By your "logic," the US doesn't get to invoke self determination because of what happened to Native Americans.
Didn't I already ask you to not use "two wrongs make a right"?
What the US did to native Americans is a terrible crime. The fact that it happened does not make future terrible crimes better. Why you continue to defend naked aggression is beyond me, although I will be watching in the future to make sure that you apply the same attitude towards US action.
Is US declaration of independence "wrong"? Native Americans weren't consulted at all.
Irrelevant. The US Declaration of Independence changed nothing about the relationship of the colonists to the native Americans.
I am still not sure where you are going with this. No more elections in Crimea, ever, because Tatar population is not as big as it would have been if some bad things didn't happen?
No ability of majority Russians to choose to join the territory to Russia because they killed or deported all the dissenters. How is that hard to understand? That's a perversion of the principles of liberalism and self determination.
You are still claiming that the Russians now living in Crimea killed and deported all the dissenters 70 years ago?
Even if they did, their sins don't take away your right to a vote and/or self determination.Wait, so your claim is if your parents committed mass murder that you get to pretend it didn't happen?
Oh absolutely. I definitely think that native Americans should have a greater say in what happens. That's already come up in threads about Crimea.
Oh great, since it's already come up it must be real.
So what's it going to look like, states abolished and provinces setup under Indian tribal leaders?
Like this maybe?
I mean really?
This whole thread just fell off a cliff and landed here:
Can we just agree on a few things here?
1a) The Crimea vote was neither fair nor legal. Short notice. Shuttering of opposition media. Military intervention and intimidation, and very little in the way of civilized debate.
1b) That having been said, Crimea had long been itching to leave Ukraine, and its separatism is why it was given autonomous status back in the 90's. Had there been a fair and legal vote, Crimea likely would've voted to leave.
(Hey guys? It doesn't have to be so f*cking black and white: You can have an illegitimate referendum that comes to the same conclusion as a legitimate one--though probably not with those kinds of margins--and just because the end result likely would've been the same doesn't make a sham referendum legitimate.)
2) Putin is a egomaniacal dictator who silences opposition media, jails dissidents, and otherwise makes a mockery of democracy. He's a liar and increasingly dangerous.
3) Putin did actively intervene in the Crimea and lied about it. Those "self-defense" forces? They were Russian military. Claims that Russians in Crimea were in danger? False. Those "protestors"? Many crossed the border from Russia to agitate. Putin denied it, but finally admitted to it.
4) Putin is actively intervening in Eastern Ukraine, following pretty much the same playbook as Crimea. Astroturfed "protestors" and "freedom fighters" who are actually Russian agents. He denies them now, but the evidence (and I'm not talking about the photographs) is massive.
5a) Yes, the West has committed past sins, like invading Iraq on false pretenses.
5b) Iraq doesn't matter because this is Ukraine, not Iraq. It's childish logic to argue that past sins in a completely unrelated region on completely unrelated matters somehow justify Putin's actions in Ukraine.
Frankly, I don't give a damn about the past injustices done to the Tatars. Populations have migrated and/or been displaced through all of human history. Crimea is a region whose populations has shifted a number of times through history. It's foolish to try to chase this through time. Should we go further back in time and just hand Crimea back to the Greeks? Should we move the Turks out of Turkey and back to Central Asia where they came from? Should we move the English out of England since they were originally invaders from what is now Germany and return England to its "original" inhabitants who long ago had fled to Scotland and Wales?
It's asinine to use the Tatars as the central point of the Crimean question. Isn't it enough to just point to Putin's outright lies and thuggery and the fact that he's currently the biggest f*cking asshole in Europe?