Israel to send Hawk missiles to Ukraine

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

5 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Ah the typical, whataboutism, false analogies.

Kosovo declared independence after facing ethnic cleansing. Millions being attacked, robbed, forcibly moved out, their houses burned down, because of their religion. And ethnic cleansing is one of the very rare circumstances where international law allows secession. I'm not aware of ethnic cleansing being conducted in Crimea. Putin invaded Crimea literally before a new ukrainian president was even elected, after pro-russian president was removed from power. So entertain me on how this pro-russian president was conducting ethnic cleansing against russians in Crimea ? Like even if we dont trust media, international orgnanizations and conspiracy theorists like you think ethnic cleansing was happening secretly in crimea, the timeline doesn't make sense.

I explained this to you before but you conveniently ignore because it seems that you cannot think beyond false analogies and whataboutism.

Don't waste my time if you're not arguing in good faith.

So a province of ethnic Albanians next to the Albanian border who no longer wanted to be part of Serbia can secede but a province of ethnic Russians next to Russia's border who no longer wanted to be part of Russia cannot. I just have this image of you panickly typying trying to search for pretexts why the different principles apply to the same situation.

Mind you NATO is in Kosovo since the 90s and Kosovo is not Bosnia no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Also what is this international law you speak of and how it come it has no issues with Israel annexing Palestine? What genocide is taking place on Syria's oil fileds that American soldiers are protecting people from?

[Dennis 8,391]

18 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

So a province of ethnic Albanians next to the Albanian border who no longer wanted to be part of Serbia can secede but a province of ethnic Russians next to Russia's border who no longer wanted to be part of Russia cannot.

Yes, because that's what international law says, no matter how many mental gymnastics you wanna pull.

One suffered ethnic cleansing, the other did not. Simple. Kosovo was subjected to ethnic cleansing. Crimea was not. And by the way these are the findings of the International Tribunal, not me.

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

5 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Yes, because that's what international law says, no matter how many mental gymnastics you wanna pull.

Do you mind sending me the exact article from "international law" that says this? I want to read it.

And while you're at it mind sending me the article that allows Israel to occupy Palestine and have an US embassy in Jerusalem? Clearly it was against international treaties but they probably revised it in the latest edition of "international law".

[Dennis 8,391]

3 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Do you mind sending me the exact article from "international law" that says this? I want to read it.

And while you're at it mind sending me the article that allows Israel to occupy Palestine and have an US embassy in Jerusalem? Clearly it was against international treaties but they probably revised it in the latest edition of "international law".

I remember I already did in the past but you probably didnt bother reading

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/22/issue/1/self-determination-and-secession-under-international-law-cases-kurdistan

"Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely persecuted peoples."

And here's another one:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26227069

"This doctrine is often referred to as remedial secession. The article considers the theory and practice of remedial secession and points out that its theoretical foundations are rather weak. It concludes that secession is never an entitlement, not even in a situation of severe oppression. Yet it may well be that international recognition is more likely to be granted when oppressed peoples try to create their own state. "

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

2 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I remember I already did in the past but you probably didnt bother reading

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/22/issue/1/self-determination-and-secession-under-international-law-cases-kurdistan

"Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely persecuted peoples."

My man, that is an article by a political science researcher talking about how ambigous international law is (if we can even call it like this as there is no unified codex of law that acts like a Constitution for all nations).

This is beyond weak..

[Dennis 8,391]

2 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

My man, that is an article by a political science researcher talking about how ambigous international law is (if we can even call it like this as there is no unified codex of law that acts like a Constitution for all nations).

This is beyond weak..

Well you clearly didn't read then, and why should I bother wasting more time in that case. It speaks to how secession is not an entitlement. You can't just say that oh we're a russian minority and we want russia to take over this land. It doesn't work out that way. Except in extreme circumstances of ethnic cleansing etc, international law does not tolerate secession, and especially secession through the use of force.

[BBhomemaker 5,611]

Lets not pretend like the US has no interests in this war other than only helping Ukraine out of emphaty and generosity.. (same goes for a lot of countries)

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

Well you clearly didn't read then, and why should I bother wasting more time in that case. It speaks to how secession is not an entitlement. You can't just say that oh we're a russian minority and we want russia to take over this land. It doesn't work out that way. Except in extreme circumstances of ethnic cleansing etc, international law does not tolerate secession, and especially secession through the use of force.

No, this an arbitrary reading of international law served to accomodate your country' foreign policy. The reality is that international law is: a) ambiguous; b) contradictory;) unenforced and all major players know and act accordingly.

[Dennis 8,391]

6 minutes ago, BBhomemaker said:

Lets not pretend like the US has no interests in this war other than only helping Ukraine out of emphaty and generosity.. (same goes for a lot of countries)

And let's not also pretend that U.S is only helping Ukraine only because of self-interest, like the OP is claiming, which you didn't seem to find issue with? I guess Biden is doomed if he helps Ukraine, doomed if he does not, thanks to people like you and the far right who'll attack him in both cases.

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

5 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I guess the president of US is doomed if he helps Ukraine, doomed if he does not, thanks to people like you and the far right who'll attack him in both cases.

Yes, people don't seem to view the US as a pure bridegoom wearing white. I think you know why..

[BBhomemaker 5,611]

30 minutes ago, Dennis said:

And let's not also pretend that U.S is only helping Ukraine only because of self-interest, like the OP is claiming, which you didn't seem to find issue with? I guess Biden is doomed if he helps Ukraine, doomed if he does not, thanks to people like you and the far right who'll attack him in both cases.

Did i commented on the OP tho ?

I said what i said and nothing more  you can keep your overwhelmed thoughts down 

[Dennis 8,391]

29 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Yes, people don't seem to view the US as a pure bridegoom wearing white. I think you know why..

Or maybe try to have more constructive criticism, rather than simply saying anything U.S does is exclusively motivated by self-interest and wanting to "entrap" other countries. Like even when 113 billion $ of taxpayer money go to Ukraine, most of which is budgetary, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine, somehow we're now supposed to also join the far right and complain about how it's not actual help but entrapment for Ukraine.

What total nonsense. If everyone in the world was cynical as you, no one will try to do anything good, because there always has to be a sinister motive underneath, according to you.

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

20 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Or maybe try to have more constructive criticism, rather than simply saying anything U.S does is exclusively motivated by self-interest and wanting to "entrap" other countries. Like even when 113 billion $ of taxpayer money go to Ukraine, most of which is budgetary, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine, somehow we're now supposed to also join the far right and complain about how it's not actual help but entrapment for Ukraine.

What total nonsense. If everyone in the world was cynical as you, no one will try to do anything good, because there always has to be a sinister motive underneath, according to you.

I am not here to feed into anybody's saviour complex. You may call this cynical, but the opposite view is out of touch and unrealistic. America funds Ukraine not for goodness, democracy or something else but to have Ukraine in its sphere.

20 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Like even when 113 billion $ of taxpayer money go to Ukraine, most of which is budgetary, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine.

Most of which is military*: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/data-sets/ukraine-support-tracker-data-17410/

[Dennis 8,391]

11 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

I am not here to feed into anybody's saviour complex. You may call this cynical, but the opposite view is out of touch and unrealistic. America funds Ukraine not for goodness, democracy or something else but to have Ukraine in its sphere.

"The US isn't interested in democracy, freedom or human rights. The US seeks to win over Ukraine financially as Ukraine will forever be indebited to the United States after the war."

Above is direct quote from you. I don't need to bother anymore. You claimed that help for Ukraine is a debt trap, when Ukraine does not even have to repay for anything at all. If U.S like China for example, offered help only in the form of loans, you'd have a point, but considering these are donations, your point is invalid. Just accept it and move on. Sometimes U.S interests and the moral position align. I know you hate to see it but it happens. And in the case of Ukraine, yes U.S has interest in keeping Ukraine an independent nation, but it's also the moral position to pursue.  Interest =/= sinister intentions. So don't try to make up false claims about debt trap.

 

[Dennis 8,391]

25 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Most of which is military*: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/data-sets/ukraine-support-tracker-data-17410/

Failed gotcha moment from you. This only includes "bilaterial committment" that is exclusively money that is given to Ukrainian government/military, hence why you see U.S total as 73B$ not 113B$. It doesn't include money allocated for ukrainians in Europe, for eastern european countries to host them, or for food assistance (including for Africa to buy Ukrainian grain paid for by the U.S). You get the point. The aid is not exclusively military. 45-50-55% whatever figure suits your semantics, it's still a big part humanitarian and economic.