ballsalsa said:

What if it were the US annexing part of Mexico?  All other things equal just substitute baja for crimea and the U.S. for Russia?  Totally fine?

---

Kryptos said:

I'm not contesting it's what they wanted--I'm simply saying that what they wanted and did was an illegal act.
.
.
.
I largely agree with falcon--Crimea is mostly happy to be part of Russia.

However, I do not believe that Crimea had the right to vote to leave Ukraine.

---

koods said:

You don’t have a vote to rejoin Russia with russian mercenaries patrolling the streets. That’s not a legitimate vote

---

koods said:

If there’s anything I know about you, it’s that you hear what you want to hear

---

koods said:

It was a coerced vote. Coerced by the implication of violence.

---

ballsalsa said:

Plenty of things are illegal.  That doesn't make them immoral.  My whole point to begin with was that self determination doesn't happen by vote.  Maybe one day, but not today.  The Crimean vote for annexation would have meant exactly nothing without the military might of Russia to back it up, both in the open and (probably) clandestinely.

---

ballsalsa said:

I'll withhold judgment on whether or not any given group should be in charge of any given bit of territory but I will stand by the statement that secession from one's nation requires an ability and willingness to take up arms or have a patron willing to do so on one's behalf.

---

ballsalsa said:

Legal, constitutional, etc.
These are irrelevant to my point, just like your arguments about international law and the UN.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

koods said:

If there’s anything I know about you, it’s that you hear what you want to hear

---

koods said:

It was a coerced vote. Coerced by the implication of violence.

---

Source, or make believe?  If there's anything I know about you, it's that you make believe things you can never prove when asked.

---

ballsalsa said:

I'm saying that the law is irrelevant to whether a group of people are able break away from an existing Gov't or not.
The only real determining factor is that people's ability to affect that outcome.  What should or should not trump what else is has little or no bearing on what happens in reality.

---

koods said:

Falcon91Wolvr03 said:

koods said:

It was a coerced vote. Coerced by the implication of violence.

---

Source, or make believe?  If there's anything I know about you, it's that you make believe things you can never prove when asked.

---

The world community has sanctioned Russia for illegally annexing crimea. Your biased opinion is rather irrelevant

---

So no source that it was coerced?  Just that the 'world community' didn't like it?  Got it - make believe as always! 

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

ballsalsa said:

I'm saying that the law is irrelevant to whether a group of people are able break away from an existing Gov't or not.
The only real determining factor is that people's ability to affect that outcome.  What should or should not trump what else is has little or no bearing on what happens in reality.

---

So by that reasoning, you're now ok with Crimea being part of Russia?  Or am I misreading?

---

ballsalsa said:

Reality doesn't give a shit whether I'm ok with it or not.  My position on the morality or lack thereof in annexing Crimea is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one can vote oneself into self-determination.

---

ballsalsa said:

The UN exists in order that the strongest countries decide things.

---