For all the cant about democracy and whatnot, they seem very reluctant to think in terms of democratic solutions. One could confuse them with lying hypocrites.
My first thought after reading this was “can a delusional person still get confused?” I will need to think more about this, but I imagine a person struggling with many possible views, but then he ends up dismissing the “reasonable” options and subsequently convinces himself of the delusional option.
When I think of democracies, I think of the rule of law such that no one is above the law. If I see a president or a high ranking official legally removed from office, then I think that there might be due process at work. The accused get an open and fairing of their case, and the prosecution get their side heard. I also think of courts, like SCOTUS, applying checks and balances to executive orders and legislation to proscribe executive actions. Also, I believe that democracies, however imperfect, should allow free and fair elections.
Now, in my opinion, neither Russia nor China are democracies. They do NOT obey the rule of law. They do NOT have a court system that can apply checks to the executive branch, and they do not have free and fair elections. These are autocracies which appear to primarily benefit a small elite and confiscate whatever wealth that cannot be defended by those at the bottom.
When governments do things, they are ipso facto legal.
Who believes that the crimes against humanity by Nazi Germany were ipso facto legal? I can’t accept that the Germans of today would even believe that nonsense. It must have been your reflexive desire to protect BP which caused you write such a dumb thing.
So, this is where I must decide if you are dumb, confused or delusional. When the CCP takes farmland and then takes bribes from developers to sell apartments to captured buyers, I don’t accept this as legal. The CCP did not win any elections, their courts have no power over it, and so there was no due process in this confiscation. Hmm, given that the CPP think they own all the farmland, they may decide they own all the new apartments as well, and may resell them as needed.
You may view Russia as a democracy, but I don’t. Putin is a "strongman” and a fascist. If a company was sold off in Germany or in Russia, which case was likely done with due process and which one was done without? Which one would have legitimacy in eyes of the world?
Mq: So when Yukos assets were taken by Russia's government and sold off, it's not for the buyers to determine the legality of it.
The court in The Hague disagree. I’ll take their judgment over yours. Here are snips from the previous article:
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has thrown the book at the Russian state, or more specifically at Vladimir Putin and his Siloviki circle from the security services.
"Yukos was the object of a series of politically motivated attacks by the Russian authorities that eventually led to its destruction. The primary objective of the Russian Federation was not to collect taxes but rather to bankrupt Yukos and appropriate its valuable assets," it said.
Sanctions will not lead to all-out war because it would involve the use of nuclear weapons. Maybe the Russians would rather be dead than red from a Chinese conquest, but I somehow doubt that.
Just as they probably are aware of Genghis Khan's depredations from the east.
Since Genghis Khan didn’t have nukes, I’ll just consider this as another irrelevant aside.
It has been clear to me that you don’t see any difference between the “referendum in Crimea” and the others you mentioned. I think Putin does now.
Russian authorities have banned a Siberian independence march and threatened to block the BBC Russian service over its coverage of separatist protests.
In sharp contrast to the treatment of separatists in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Moscow has made it clear that it does not welcome similar aspirations at home.
Russia bans Siberia independence march under extremism law
theguardian.com
You just can't make this stuff up. |
