A Sad Farwell to Russia

[Muzh]

IMO, it wasn't too long ago *we* almost committed ourselves to a pretty silly sin and armed the Syrian rebels in their fight to oust another president, remember that? Only to have Putin openly stop us from doing so by citing arming the rebels is actually arming Al-Qaeda because a huge part of the uprising actually included these known terrorist group. Hell, McCain wanted to send them predatory drones. LOL.
 

Not an LOL but a LMFAO
 
McCain is beyond senile.

We read reports that Bashar Al-Assad used WMD. Then we also read reports that 'no', the rebels used it after the Obama red line.
 

Nothing like maintaining the good old military-industrial complex. Heh

I tend to look at this with 'known' facts. Chevron, fracking contracts, amount of gas deposit in Ukraine, where does EU stand on this issue and where do the US? Where does Russia stand? How will it affects one from the other?

There already are many factual events that had taken place even before any 'gunshot' was fired - regardless of *by whom*. The ol' adage..*follow the money* always seem to play out over many of these events and I no longer believe these are coincidences any more, man.

GQ, notice I'm not arguing those facts. Never said it wasn't true. As a matter of fact, you are right on the money.
 
Again, one more time why I said that I was convinced that Putin would never invade Crimea. Too much at stake. The only way he would be able to have his cake and eat it too was to keep what he was doing, Crimea was his ace in his sleeve. With Crimea he could easily control ANY government after Yanukonvict. I believe he panicked and miscalculated. Now everyone is doing damage control.
 
As an aside, have you noticed a goddamn fly pestering around? Annoying buzzing.

[Muzh]

I've come to the conclusion that we NEED Putin in the mix.  Thankfully he has secured those ports.  Without a strong Russia, there will be that much less to stop us from fomenting and usurping whomever we feel like.  We the people, don't have much say in these things, but a formidable world opponent can keep a bully in check.  Of course overall I'm pro-US since I live here and own a lot of Chevron stock, but I'm convinced it is in our interests to keep our govt. from getting too aggressive or intrusive in other nation's internal problems. 


Fathertime!

LMFAO
 
I need to see what happens next.
 
You are one hell of a ballbuster.

[jone]

Here is the article I quoted from.  It is always nice to see some gracefully aging RussBabes in the pictures of the members of the Rada.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26304842



Notice Klitchko in the far right? At 6'5"  he towers above those around him. 

[jone]

One of these days you'll learn the difference between *facts* from *opinions*. Maybe then, I may even re-consider having a discussion with you on issues like this.

When you are citing *facts*, one need not offer an opinion, or cite opinions of others. You simply let everyone else joust and make things up for their basis.

But I gotta tell you...it's really fun being on this side, man. Maybe someday, you'll understand the feeling. So keep the faith.

You are so full of baloney.   I was being gracious to you, letting you off the hook easily.  Now, instead, you have made this grandiose argument that Yanukovych was overturned illegally and I quote the article that states that he was overturned by a constitutional majority. 

I can see you sitting at your keyboard trying to figure out a way to discredit my argument.  SO, please, on behalf of everyone here, quote your sources that overturn the BBC Ukrainian Expert.   

[Slumba]

All of the laws that Hitler passed were legal under the German system of government. 

Thus , why the hate for Hitler?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

The problem is, you can't worship the process, and you can't worship the men running it. 

Worship of the process allows bad men to modify the process for their own self-serving interests (c.f. current Wall Street behavior, Obamacare, NSA, etc.) ; while worship of the men running the government gives you a strongman or cult of personality problem (c.f. Stalin, early days of Obama amongst some).

It is why despite the hard work and thought that went into the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson himself said things like:

"When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution."

[fathertime]

 
 
Again, one more time why I said that I was convinced that Putin would never invade Crimea. Too much at stake. The only way he would be able to have his cake and eat it too was to keep what he was doing, Crimea was his ace in his sleeve. With Crimea he could easily control ANY government after Yanukonvict. I believe he panicked and miscalculated. Now everyone is doing damage control.
 

I'd like to understand what you are saying here as it speaks to what your reasoning was....but for the love of all that is holy, I can't make out what you were trying to say here. 
My impression was that Russia was indeed going to lose their influence over Ukraine and down the line their ports would be in jeopardy.  That was just NEVER going to on the table for Russia. 

You are one hell of a ballbuster.

I suppose so, but I am also willing to discuss thing civilly...it just depends on who and how I'm treated by the person i'm talking with.




Fathertime!   

[GQBlues]

...Again, one more time why I said that I was convinced that Putin would never invade Crimea. Too much at stake. The only way he would be able to have his cake and eat it too was to keep what he was doing, Crimea was his ace in his sleeve. With Crimea he could easily control ANY government after Yanukonvict. I believe he panicked and miscalculated. Now everyone is doing damage control....

I concur. I recently used the metaphor 'political pinata' in describing Ukraine. So now, based on your statement above, allow me to use 'political musical chair' to describe the EU/US/Russia in this. The only cause of curiosity now remains is, which one will be left standing when the music stops, or which one will have to sit on another's lap?
 

....As an aside, have you noticed a goddamn fly pestering around? Annoying buzzing.

LOL. With that, I leave you a bit of humour. If you've already seen it, oh well I tried to cheer you up. If not, enjoy!

[Muzh]

I'd like to understand what you are saying here as it speaks to what your reasoning was....but for the love of all that is holy, I can't make out what you were trying to say here. 
My impression was that Russia was indeed going to lose their influence over Ukraine and down the line their ports would be in jeopardy.  That was just NEVER going to on the table for Russia. 


Fathertime!

He he he you are funny.

[GQBlues]

You are so full of baloney.   I was being gracious to you, letting you off the hook easily.  Now, instead, you have made this grandiose argument that Yanukovych was overturned illegally and I quote the article that states that he was overturned by a constitutional majority. 

I can see you sitting at your keyboard trying to figure out a way to discredit my argument.  SO, please, on behalf of everyone here, quote your sources that overturn the BBC Ukrainian Expert.   

jone-

Like with BillyB, it isn't the lack of acquired knowledge, education or availability of information that ails him; but something he was obviously born with.

Such obviously applies to you as well.

[LiveFromUkraine]

You are so full of baloney.   I was being gracious to you, letting you off the hook easily.  Now, instead, you have made this grandiose argument that Yanukovych was overturned illegally and I quote the article that states that he was overturned by a constitutional majority. 

I can see you sitting at your keyboard trying to figure out a way to discredit my argument.  SO, please, on behalf of everyone here, quote your sources that overturn the BBC Ukrainian Expert.   

Jone, how can you conclude the members voting were not under any duress?  Don't you think it would have been better to just wait until the next elections?

[fathertime]

Jone, how can you conclude the members voting were not under any duress?  Don't you think it would have been better to just wait until the next elections?

I can see that being the case...the membership was worked up. 


Elections were coming soon....they should have waited....they KNEW that  Yanukovych's life was in jeopardy[size=78%].[/size][/size]..and he might have been given a bayonet enema if he stuck around.[size=78%][/size][size=78%]    [/size]
Fathertime!   

[jone]

Duress?  I doubt it. 

Yanukovych made claims that his own party was backstabbing him.  Where do you think those votes came from?  They were in the majority.  They found out that Yanu had ordered the shootings of the Maidan participants. 

For the most part, the Maidan protesters were peaceful.  They ejected from their ranks any who turned towards violence.  Now, with picture after picture is coming out showing that the FSB was participating in the shootings, a clearer picture is beginning to emerge.  Yanukovych, with the help of the Russians, instigated the systemic assassination of Maidan protesters.

It was incumbent on the Party of Regions to act.  They joined with the opposition and kicked Yanukovych out of the Presidency.  If that alone were not the telling sign, then perhaps you also might be interested that they ejected him from their own party.  His party kicked him out!

I would like you to explain how these members of Yanukovych's own party were under duress.  Or was that simply speculation?

[jone]

I can see that being the case...the membership was worked up. 


Elections were coming soon....they should have waited....they KNEW that  Yanukovych's life was in jeopardy[size=78%].[/size][/size]..and he might have been given a bayonet enema if he stuck around.[size=78%][/size][size=78%]    [/size]
Fathertime!

I think we are confused about what you are trying to say.  Perhaps you would like to elaborate.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Duress?  I doubt it. 

Yanukovych made claims that his own party was backstabbing him.  Where do you think those votes came from?  They were in the majority.  They found out that Yanu had ordered the shootings of the Maidan participants. 

For the most part, the Maidan protesters were peaceful.  They ejected from their ranks any who turned towards violence.  Now, with picture after picture is coming out showing that the FSB was participating in the shootings, a clearer picture is beginning to emerge.  Yanukovych, with the help of the Russians, instigated the systemic assassination of Maidan protesters.

It was incumbent on the Party of Regions to act.  They joined with the opposition and kicked Yanukovych out of the Presidency.  If that alone were not the telling sign, then perhaps you also might be interested that they ejected him from their own party.  His party kicked him out!

I would like you to explain how these members of Yanukovych's own party were under duress.  Or was that simply speculation?

I was asking a question.  I don't know the answer because it seems to have happened pretty quickly even though new elections were part of the agreement along with a constitutional change.  Maybe I missed something there.

Any links to the snipers being linked to Yanu? 


Since the consitution chang wasn't signed prior to Yanu running, what constitution was used in terms of votes needed?  I think this is what GQ is talking about.


"However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers. "

http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html

[fathertime]

I think we are confused about what you are trying to say.  Perhaps you would like to elaborate.

Who is ‘we’?
I was supporting LFU’s point that a vote under those circumstances could have easily been under duress…looking at what happened in Parliament today provides evidence that the violence and intimidation are factors…If Yanukovych was at risk of a bayonet enema then why wouldn't parliament members feel the same way? Some might have felt voting the 'wrong' way could be their last decision.  Of course this is just speculation, but speculation based on logic.


Fathertime!   

[Muzh]

Any links to the snipers being linked to Yanu? 

You just talk for the sake of talking, don't you? 
 
Old news. 
 
Try this if you must. 
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26868119
 
And this if you need more. 
 
http://yanukovychleaks.org/

[Muzh]

Who is ‘we’?
I was supporting LFU’s point that a vote under those circumstances could have easily been under duress…looking at what happened in Parliament today provides evidence that the violence and intimidation are factors…If Yanukovych was at risk of a bayonet enema then why wouldn't parliament members feel the same way? Some might have felt voting the 'wrong' way could be their last decision.  Of course this is just speculation, but speculation based on logic.


Fathertime!

LMAO
 
What a ballbuster.
 
 

[LiveFromUkraine]

You just talk for the sake of talking, don't you? 
 

Good little sheep.    

Care to elaborate on which constitution was used to vote?  I didn't think so.


Thanks for the link.

Edited:  I just read the article and I take it at face value.  It does not go into what proof they have at all.  It states that FSB were involved but does not go into detail as to why they say that.  I don't necessarily think it isn't a possibility but certainly don't accept what I read any longer without wanting to know more about how they came to the conclusions.


It seems the only evidence is they determined the location where the snipers fired from and deduced who was in the area at the time. 


Am I missing any other facts?

[Ukrainian Security Service chief Valentyn Nalyvaychenko said that Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) operatives had been involved in planning operations against the protesters.
He added that the FSB had sent "tonnes" of explosives and weapons by plane to Ukraine.


The Ukrainian authorities also said that the killings of the protesters took place "under the direct leadership" of Mr Yanukovych.

How did they deduce Yanu orders the snipers or is this a case of it happened under his watch and therefore he is guilty.

[jone]

Oh, so you were speculating on why members of Yanukovych's own party would vote to oust him in spite of the fact that they were tied together? 

Yes, that would put them under duress..... to distance themselves from him.  Which they did. 

Politicians vote in their own self interest.  They knew, as we know now, that all this was going to come out.   Why do you think various members of the cabinet, and various oligarchs immediately fled the country? 

As for the modifications to the constitution?  Which ones are you talking about?  The ones that Yanukovych made?  Awarding himself power as though he was running a dictatorship?  Were they legal?  Dunno.  Haven't gotten that in depth in my reading and don't intend to.  All I can say is that the same way that they were created, they were undone.   Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Oh, so you were speculating on why members of Yanukovych's own party would vote to oust him in spite of the fact that they were tied together? 

Yes, that would put them under duress..... to distance themselves from him.  Which they did. 

Politicians vote in their own self interest.  They knew, as we know now, that all this was going to come out.   Why do you think various members of the cabinet, and various oligarchs immediately fled the country? 

As for the modifications to the constitution?  Which ones are you talking about?  The ones that Yanukovych made?  Awarding himself power as though he was running a dictatorship?  Were they legal?  Dunno.  Haven't gotten that in depth in my reading and don't intend to.  All I can say is that the same way that they were created, they were undone.   Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Part of the initial "Maidan" agreement was to restore the constitution back to 2004 instead of using the 1996 version he restored.  As far as I know, the 1996 version was still in place when he left.


You seem pretty passive on the laws required to oust the President but still state it was legal. 


IMO, there shouldn't be a need to ask these questions.  Being rushed through hurt them more than helped. 

[jone]

Here is what I was referring to.  Anyone can read it. 

On October 1, 2010, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine overturned the 2004 amendments, considering them unconstitutional.[9][10] The Court had started to consider the case on the political reform in 2004 under a motion from 252 coalition lawmakers regarding the constitutionality of this reform of July 14, 2010.[11][12][13] The 2010 nullification decision was highly controversial. The Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner received several reports alleging that the resignation of four judges in the run-up to the decision occurred as a result of extensive pressure by the executive.[14] On November 18, 2010 The Venice Commission published its report titled The Opinion of the Constitutional Situation in Ukraine in Review of the Judgement of Ukraine's Constitutional Court, in which it stated "It also considers highly unusual that far-reaching constitutional amendments, including the change of the political system of the country - from a parliamentary system to a parliamentary presidential one - are declared unconstitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court after a period of 6 years. ... As Constitutional Courts are bound by the Constitution and do not stand above it, such decisions raise important questions of democratic legitimacy and the rule of law".[15]

On February 21, 2014 the parliament passed a law that reinstated the December 8, 2004 amendments of the constitution.[16] This was passed under simplified procedure without any decision of the relevant committee and was passed in the first and the second reading in one voting by 386 deputies.[16] The law was approved by 140 MPs of the Party of Regions, 89 MPs of Batkivshchyna, 40 MPs of UDAR, 32 of the Communist Party, and 50 independent lawmakers.[16] According to Radio Free Europe, however, the measure was not signed by the then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who allegedly was subsequently removed from office without the constitutionally required procedures.[17]


******************************************************************

Sauce for the goose - sauce for the gander.  Anyone reading this would conclude as I did, that the operation of the overturning of the 2004 amendments were operationally illegal, so the operation by the Rada, restoring the amendments, which lacked the signature of the President, but was subsequently signed by the acting President could also be construed as illegal.

I have not done extensive reading on these fine points.  But if you are talking about duress, I would point you back to the judges that were coerced into signing the original revision, yielding Yanukovych powers of a dictator. 

So let's stop splitting hairs.  The overwhelming membership of the elected body threw out the guy that was f'ng up.  They did so under the flawed mechanism that they had in front of them to the best of their ability.  It wasn't a coup.  It was the will of all of the elected membership including the guy's own political party.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Glad to see where you're coming from jone.  I searched on the text to find the wiki link.

Since we are talking about the 2004 Constitution...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine,_2004

Article 111
The President of Ukraine may be removed from office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime.
The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special Prosecutor and special investigators.
The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine.
The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime.

From my understanding. 2/3rds votes are needed to start the inquiry and 3/4ths votes are needed to remove the president once the inquiry is completed.
I don't recall any inquiry/cause being voted on, being conducted nor voted on when completed, do you?  Do you really think that is splitting hairs?

[jone]

No, quite honestly, I just read that more than one commentator said that they followed the rule of law as was posted in the article that I listed earlier. 

The issue outstanding was whether Yanu actually signed the revision.  As I said previously, I haven't done the reading, nor did I want to.

Yanu's repeated claim to fame is that he refused to sign the revision, not that he was not ousted by enough votes.  Perhaps you have some non-speculative facts that you might share?  I really don't care to dig.  I was satisfied with the reports by multiple news sources that the vote constituted a constitutional majority.  Did you read the above article?  Are you disputing it?

[GQBlues]

The ousting of the president is illegal and unconstitutional. Any and all actions thereafter, for all intent and purposes, is illegal. Period.

I'm amazed jone even took the time to post what clearly he *misunderstood* in an attempt to allegedly support his view.

It's fascinating. It resoundingly reminded me of that silly 'feminist' argument/definition I had with him.

[LiveFromUkraine]

No, quite honestly, I just read that more than one commentator said that they followed the rule of law as was posted in the article that I listed earlier. 

The issue outstanding was whether Yanu actually signed the revision.  As I said previously, I haven't done the reading, nor did I want to.

Yanu's repeated claim to fame is that he refused to sign the revision, not that he was not ousted by enough votes.  Perhaps you have some non-speculative facts that you might share?  I really don't care to dig.  I was satisfied with the reports by multiple news sources that the vote constituted a constitutional majority.  Did you read the above article?  Are you disputing it?

I have been posting my facts.  I posted article 111 from their constitution.  I don't recall seeing anything done in that article besides them quickly voting him out. 


The problem with the media is most would rather regurgitate what someone tells them than look up the facts.   That is why we need to ask questions.  Simply stating they followed the law isn't good enough nor should we accept it as fact.


 A vote isn't good enough according to their own constitution.  Hell, if we were splitting hairs, that end vote to make a final decision, after the special committee renders their report,  is 338 votes.  I don't know how you can talk about splitting hairs when talking about following a legal process to remove a president.


I am questioning the article, yes, and it seems rightly so.  I don't look at it as splitting hairs since I have no side on the issue besides wanting the truth.  I also don't accept articles unless they show facts.  Stating it was legal isn't a fact unless they can show the process that was done to make it legal.


So far, it doesn't look legal to me.