Obama gives Iraq war a more generous spin
Obama softening his position on Iraq?
Other news sources were much more pointed in their view of this small but significant shift.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/26/obama-defends-iraq-invasion-a-little/
Speaking in Brussels, Obama dismissed suggestions by Russia and its supporters that the Iraq war undercuts the United States' credibility in criticizing Russia's incursion into Crimea in Ukraine.
“It is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate – not just around the world, but in the United States as well," Obama said. "I happened to oppose our military intervention there."
Obama added: "But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.”
Obama then made a similar point about Kosovo, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has cited as another example of the West not walking the walk.
"...NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years," Obama said. "And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized – not outside the boundaries of international law – but in careful cooperation with the United Nations, and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that happened in Crimea.”
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Other news sources were much more pointed in their view of this small but significant shift.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/26/obama-defends-iraq-invasion-a-little/
Speaking in Brussels, Obama dismissed suggestions by Russia and its supporters that the Iraq war undercuts the United States' credibility in criticizing Russia's incursion into Crimea in Ukraine.
“It is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate – not just around the world, but in the United States as well," Obama said. "I happened to oppose our military intervention there."
Obama added: "But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.”
Obama then made a similar point about Kosovo, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has cited as another example of the West not walking the walk.
"...NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years," Obama said. "And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized – not outside the boundaries of international law – but in careful cooperation with the United Nations, and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that happened in Crimea.”
that part never happened
it's pretty hilarious hearing people try to defend US interventionism while condemn Russia's, these people absolutely hate facts
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
^this
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
Other news sources were much more pointed in their view of this small but significant shift.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/26/obama-defends-iraq-invasion-a-little/
Speaking in Brussels, Obama dismissed suggestions by Russia and its supporters that the Iraq war undercuts the United States' credibility in criticizing Russia's incursion into Crimea in Ukraine.
“It is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate – not just around the world, but in the United States as well," Obama said. "I happened to oppose our military intervention there."
Obama added: "But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.”
Obama then made a similar point about Kosovo, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has cited as another example of the West not walking the walk.
"...NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years," Obama said. "And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized – not outside the boundaries of international law – but in careful cooperation with the United Nations, and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that happened in Crimea.”
that part never happened
it's pretty hilarious hearing people try to defend US interventionism while condemn Russia's, these people absolutely hate facts
I don't think you're being fair.
Obama hasn't defended US interventionism, he's actively condemned it even there. Saying "Iraq wasn't as illegal as Crimea" is damning with faint praise. Most of what he says about Iraq (aside from "working within the international system") is true.
Kosovo isn't comparable to Crimea, pretty much for the reasons Obama points out. He was wrong to use the word "referendum" as it was an act of government. The rest of his statement is basically correct Kosovo's neighbours recognise it, aside from Serbia (well duh) and B&H (the Bosnians and Croats living there support recognition, but the Serbs have blocked it).
Obama has made the couple of small mistakes in that speech, but he has essentially pointed out why Putin is wrong. Putin would be better off pointing to the Falklands or something.
Everything he said is true except the parts that aren't. Why are Kosovo and Crimea different? Because a shooting war hasn't broken out yet? That doesn't make a lot of sense, people have to die first? Crimea is not and has never been Ukrainian. I believe in self determination and the precedent has been set after Kosovo, what right do you have to say that self determination for some is okay but not for others? 'We support the Ukrainian people and their right to choose their own future' unless you're from Crimea. America and its allies think they can run the world, false outrage about territorial integrity and constitutions that they share no concern about when it doesn't fit their interests.
There has been no self-determination in Crimea.
I said fairly on in the Ukrainian debacle that it should probably end with the country being split. However, it has been split by Russia illegally grabbing as much land as it can, and then holding sham referenda to give it an air of legitimacy. I support Crimea's right to self determination. It hasn't had that. It has been conquered.
I can't believe you're so blinded in your Obama hatred that you'd defend illegal invasions that are being condemned left right and centre. Even China refuses to recognise the annexation of Crimea as legitimate! China!
If Russia had stopped the violence, then withdrawn and allowed Russian-speaking Ukraine to decide which country to join, then that would be comparable to Kosovo. That hasn't happened. Take off your blinkers and look at the facts.
I said fairly on in the Ukrainian debacle that it should probably end with the country being split. However, it has been split by Russia illegally grabbing as much land as it can, and then holding sham referenda to give it an air of legitimacy. I support Crimea's right to self determination. It hasn't had that. It has been conquered.
I can't believe you're so blinded in your Obama hatred that you'd defend illegal invasions that are being condemned left right and centre. Even China refuses to recognise the annexation of Crimea as legitimate! China!
If Russia had stopped the violence, then withdrawn and allowed Russian-speaking Ukraine to decide which country to join, then that would be comparable to Kosovo. That hasn't happened. Take off your blinkers and look at the facts.
The current nationalist whackjobs in charge of Ukraine would never allow a referendum. And according to the EU politicians the seccession of Crimea would need to be voted on in a national referendum (which they would never win), not a local referendum. The way it has been handled now was shoddy and the referendum was tacked on after the fact, but the outcome is still reasonable in my opinion. It is probably true that most Crimeans want to join Russia rather than Ukraine.
I find this hard to believe. If that is the case, why am I not allowed to vote in the referendum on Scottish Independence? It seems strange for the EU to hold stricter standards to recognise referenda in non-member countries than in member countries.
I find this hard to believe. If that is the case, why am I not allowed to vote in the referendum on Scottish Independence? It seems strange for the EU to hold stricter standards to recognise referenda in non-member countries than in member countries.
I hope it's not the standard policy of the EU, but one of the foreign ministers said this on tv around the time when the referendum happened. It sounded almost like trolling. The way the referendum was handled now was ridiculous too. There was not even an option to remain part of Ukraine. Still, this has happened and the majority of Crimeans probably want this. These sanctions will only cost everyone money and make relations worse. They don't help Ukraine either. The economy of Ukraine is dependant on both the EU and Russia, so reconciliation between all parties would be more productive than this nonsense in my opinion.
I said fairly on in the Ukrainian debacle that it should probably end with the country being split. However, it has been split by Russia illegally grabbing as much land as it can, and then holding sham referenda to give it an air of legitimacy. I support Crimea's right to self determination. It hasn't had that. It has been conquered.
I can't believe you're so blinded in your Obama hatred that you'd defend illegal invasions that are being condemned left right and centre. Even China refuses to recognise the annexation of Crimea as legitimate! China!
If Russia had stopped the violence, then withdrawn and allowed Russian-speaking Ukraine to decide which country to join, then that would be comparable to Kosovo. That hasn't happened. Take off your blinkers and look at the facts.
Obama isn't even on my radar here. Crimea has been Russian for hundreds of years and at no point has been Ukrainian. It was only given to Ukraine by Russia in the Soviet Union in 1954 as a gift from Nikita Khrushchev who was from Ukraine. There was a coup in Kiev that illegally removed the democratically elected president bankrolled by the West with ultra-nationalist shock troops. Crimea did not recognize the new government in Kiev and Russia stepped in. America would not tolerate Russia and China supporting an anti-American coup in Mexico, how can we expect Russia to react any differently? We can't act as if we have any moral high ground over Russia after what we did in Iraq or countless other examples, I believe sanctions are act of war and that we have no business even being involved with this. I believe in self determination and the fact that Crimea was able to obtain it without bloodshed is a good thing.
There. Was. No. Self. Determination. Russia determined that Crimea was part of Russia now. It's probably what the Crimeans would have chosen in an case, but they didn't have a choice.
"No bloodshed" also isn't quiet accurate. There have been three deaths. Ukrainian hostages have been shot in the legs and tortured with electric currents. But it is a very low body count, which is a good thing.
The Autonamus Republic of Crimea was joined with Ukraine in 1954, because they were Russian, and would tip the Ukraine vote, to the Russian side. They retained their own Parliment, and local law.
It worked, the last elected President was Russian, and elected by the Russian majority, where most of Russian investment has gone to Russian speaking areas.
Keeping the Black Sea Navel Base from falling to the neo nazis by removing their military power was a resonable response.
Two thirds of the Ukraine troops elected to stay, and join the Russian service. The Republic of Crimea, which was being disolved by nazis in Kiev abolishing their self government, elected to remain self governing and join the Russian Federation.
Crimea voted to maintain the status quo.
In the upcoming Ukraine vote, the majority voted in a Russia President, and will continue a democratic rule.
The Acting government was not voted in, and will be voted out in less than two months. If you hold that Crimea's action was illegal, they should get to vote in the next Ukraine election.
The US has many programs to turn out democratic voters in other countries, not so much in their own. Russia is doing the same providing pre election support to all the Russian speakers in Ukraine.
The west that supports the nazis, offers IMF slavery, a doubling of fuel prices, taxes, food, and a wage and pension cut.
Russia offers a Russian passport, free medical and education, in Russian, higher wages and pensions, and lower taxes.
The Ukraine State is bankrupt. It is also $150 Billion in debt. Abolishing the State would abolish the debt.
Perhaps a smaller Ukraine will survive, areas that vote in Polish, Hungarian, Romainian, Ukraine. Then they can have all the debt, and join NATO, the EU, and move to Paris.
Americans can renounce their citizenship, and taking their assets become citizens of another country.
Scotland is voting to leave Great Britian, and keep their land. Several areas of Spain are doing the same, and Venice from Italy. Purto Rico often votes to become a State, remain as is, or to become a country.
It is not unheard of, it is common, for people to chose their own future. We call it Freedom.
Russia had a right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea, and never had that many. Russia has a right to have unlimited troops in Russia, and deploy them as needed.
Like the navel base, if someone reads the Gazprom Contract, they own the pipeline, and a long term right of way.
Like Iraq or many other places, they could hire Blackwater to defend the pipeline, against anyone.
If eastern and southern Ukraine, and Transnitsia wanted to they could abolish their ties with Ukraine, partition the land, Take Russian Passports, and money, and join the Russian Federation.
International Law and common useage supports their rights. Common sense does also.
The choice is, will the next generation live in debt servitude worse than the Greeks, and have to speak Ukraine, or will they continue speaking Russian and have a much higher standard of living?
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
I would just like to point out that Russia's economy cannot currently afford to absorb Crimea without additional economic support. Crimea has a deplorable economy, and it is only its geographic location that Putin wants. The only way to keep Crimea from dragging down the already precarious Russian economy is to pray that Europe doesn't start getting their natural gas from elsewhere.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
