🚨 President Trump Speaks From Oval Office At 11 ET 🚨
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (55)
sorted by:
So what do they feel about the 2014-2022 genocide against the Donbass Russians, killing upwards of 18,000 of them? They're okay with that?
Suppose it was a city, and the city government sent its civil militia out to the Donbass Neighborhood, to kill and destroy the citizens there. And after 8 years of this, their relatives in the city next door decided to move in and curb the genocide. Meanwhile, the neighborhoods under the genocidal attack vote by large majorities to join the neighboring city. And the city Boss (his Mayor term has expired) wants to continue the fight in order to continue the genocide. (And all of this was provoked by political meddling and corruption by a foreign power, who really wanted to get into a fight with the neighboring city.) A slightly different story, when all the facts are included.
Everybody gets on their high horse over sovereignty but they turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity. The basic principle of liberty is that "a government derives its just powers from the consent of the people." Genocide is not a "just power." The Donbass residents did not consent to it. Thus, the government of Ukraine forfeits its claim to sovereignty. If it will not defend all its citizens, it is in default of its authority. No government can claim sovereignty as a curtain behind which to conceal crimes against humanity. I think this sophism was pretty much dispelled by the Nuremberg Trials. (We thought it was perfectly appropriate to bomb the daylights out of Serbia because we thought it was conducting genocide against Albanians in Kosovo. Their sovereignty was piffle, in our view. It turned out to be an egregious mistake; the Albanians were conducting genocide against the Serbs in Kosovo and the central government was attempting to quell it. A curious foreshadowing of the Ukraine situation.)
Couldn't have said it better , you long winded SOB
If crimes against humanity outweighs sovereignty, then should countries like US or Israel willing lose their sovereignty?
They should stop their crimes against humanity, though I am not aware of any.
I did not have time to write anything shorter. (Old writer's joke. It is true.)
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm.
I got bamboozled again by this thread structure. i meant it as a jocular reply to Bobandarella re "long winded SOB." It really is an old writer's joke (based on all the time it takes to squeeze words out of a long draft).
So you're saying that if the Governor in Texas was committing genocide in the area, let's say he's killing every latino he sees that lives legally there, it is fully the right of Mexico to come to the aid of the latinos in danger? Then, Mexico can attack and free the latinos there, and since Texas has forfeited it's claim to sovereignty because an official was sanctioning genocide, Mexico should be allowed to keep 1/3 of Texas?
That is dumb and makes no sense. First of all, if the governor of Texas tried doing that, he'd be arrested or shot by his own cabinet, or by citizens.
Here in America (where you obviously are not from) we have this thing called the 2nd amendment, a right to bear arms, and a duty to protect ourselves from tyranny.
One of the reasons you've never heard of a genocide in the US is because anybody that would be stupid enough to try it would be shot by about a hundred people as soon as he steps foot outside.
Second of all, it wouldn't be Mexico running to stop him, it would be the us marshals, or the National Guard, county sheriffs, state legislature, state or federal courts, u s military, state militia, or even ordinary citizens.
You see, in the USA we have a LOT of checks and balances against genocidal people. At the most, when you want to hurt us, you have to be extremely subtle. That is the problem that we have gotten ourselves into currently.
There's no forfeiting of sovereignty that is a dumb argument and a missapplication of the way it works.
In the case of ukraine, the leadership currently there was put in place by a color revolution. They are not the legitimate government, therefore, they have no sovereignty to give up.
Hopefully, when all this is said and done, a legitimate government will be put in charge of what's left of ukraine, which will still be bigger than what the original components were in the first place, regardless of how much putin may bargain for.
The federal government comes in to maintain order, per the Constitution.
So what's your solution to Ukraine? Let genocide prevail because of "sovereignty"? Murderers have the right to rule? We threw off a government for less offense.