View Poll Results: Do you agree with Snowden's Asylum in Russia?

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    66 71.74%
  • No not agree

    12 13.04%
  • Don't know

    3 3.26%
  • Don't care

    11 11.96%
Page 73 of 108 FirstFirst ...
23
63
71
72
73
74
75
83
... LastLast
  1. #1441
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    True, it is another topic. All I was trying to say is that saying France invaded Libya for its good is as far-fetched as is saying the US did the same to Iraq for oil.
    No not really. Why would you think that? Are you making an absolute statement like "no war is fought over resources"? Or are you saying "based on facts this war was about removing a dictator"? Cause there are facts that point at a resource based invasion too you know? Involvement of foreign oil companies during the war, international deals before and after the war, the race towards reconstruction, the unused refinement plants...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    I honestly think it was just Bush wanting to finish what daddy started. And I think it's quite possible he believed his own stories about WMDs. I don't think it was a lie, so much as a failed justification.

    But yeah, I was very much against that war from the start. Seemed very much out of left field. Honestly though, the "America always goes to war to get resources from poor countries" crowd will always point Iraq out, even though it wasn't American oil companies mostly that have been redeveloping Iraqi oil fields. They'll make similar claims about Afghanistan even though the resources weren't found until after we were already in the country for a while, and China is the one getting the most access. Hell, I've even seen some people say we invaded Afghanistan for the opium, for goodness sake.
    "Resources" doesn't mean "oil" only. Going to war to abuse of land through investment doesn't make the war any more justified...

  2. #1442
    i´m still not to sure if it wasn´t just for preserving the status quo, namely petrodollar... so it musst not have been for the ressources itself but in what currency they are traded

    it´s weekend guys and i´m going to get wasted, read you tomorrow, have a good one
    secretly gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    and i will be remembered forever as the pants hat glove shoes naked guy from vienna

  3. #1443
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    18,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    No not really. Why would you think that? Are you making an absolute statement like "no war is fought over resources"? Or are you saying "based on facts this war was about removing a dictator"? Cause there are facts that point at a resource based invasion too you know? Involvement of foreign oil companies during the war, international deals before and after the war, the race towards reconstruction, the unused refinement plants...
    Whether or not the war was "about" resources, it would be stupid of the oil companies not to take an active interest in it. Oil company involvement is not in any way proof that the war was about the oil.

    "Resources" doesn't mean "oil" only. Going to war to abuse of land through investment doesn't make the war any more justified...
    Can you explain what you mean by this?
    Well 1, 2, 3, take my hand and come with me
    Because you look so fine
    And I really wanna make you mine

  4. #1444
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    My mistake. Though IIRC you seemed to oppose Snowden because you think he gave foreign governments classified information?
    He revealed that we were spying on our allies. Which, as we discussed before, everyone and their grandmother already knew. But it's the principle of the matter.

  5. #1445
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    No not really. Why would you think that? Are you making an absolute statement like "no war is fought over resources"? Or are you saying "based on facts this war was about removing a dictator"? Cause there are facts that point at a resource based invasion too you know? Involvement of foreign oil companies during the war, international deals before and after the war, the race towards reconstruction, the unused refinement plants...
    Well first of all, I don't buy that a democratic nation could start a war over resources without that nation itself and anyone else knowing that it's about resources besides their government. That is, I don't think they could start such a war without making it obvious enough that it's about resources. Second, I don't see how any Western nation could gain anything concerning resources if a dictator is overthrown. Dictators don't stop trade, you know.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    He revealed that we were spying on our allies. Which, as we discussed before, everyone and their grandmother already knew. But it's the principle of the matter.
    Not everyone. You're forgetting about us naive folk, as opposed to you who watch too much action movies.

    Edit: He also didn't just reveal that. He revealed that companies such as Microsoft and Apple readily agree to let the NSA spy away at regular civilians. What I find puzzling is how some Americans would never allow the NSA to spy on American citizens while it's perfectly fine if the NSA does that to foreigners (and they'd be as appalled by the discovery of the NSA doing just that, if it actually did that obviously, as the rest of us non-Americans, as well as some Americans themselves, are about the fact that foreigners are getting spied on with such magnitude). After all, we foreigners don't have rights since we're not Americans.

    By the way, if there's a threat of terrorists, it's likelier you'll find it in America itself as opposed to overseas. It doesn't even make sense to spy on random foreign civilians and not do the same to random local civilians. 9/11 was committed by people living on American soil for months before the attacks itself, if you don't remember correctly.
    Last edited by Wikiy; 2013-07-12 at 04:54 PM.

  6. #1446
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Not everyone. You're forgetting about us naive folk, as opposed to you who watch too much action movies.

    Edit: He also didn't just reveal that. He revealed that companies such as Microsoft and Apple readily agree to let the NSA spy away at regular civilians. What I find puzzling is how some Americans would never allow the NSA to spy on American citizens while it's perfectly fine if the NSA does that to foreigners (and they'd be as appalled by the discovery of the NSA doing just that, if it actually did that obviously, as the rest of us non-Americans, as well as some Americans themselves, are about the fact that foreigners are getting spied on with such magnitude). After all, we foreigners don't have rights since we're not Americans.

    By the way, if there's a threat of terrorists, it's likelier you'll find it in America itself as opposed to overseas. It doesn't even make sense to spy on random foreign civilians and not do the same to random local civilians. 9/11 was committed by people living on American soil for months before the attacks itself, if you don't remember correctly.
    Well they aren't really looking specifically for terrorists. They're just looking for... anything, really. Anything useful.

  7. #1447
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    Whether or not the war was "about" resources, it would be stupid of the oil companies not to take an active interest in it. Oil company involvement is not in any way proof that the war was about the oil.



    Can you explain what you mean by this?
    Sorry but allow me to ask questions when I see their names in between who funded the rebels. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask especially in light of the deals total had to shut with Iran.
    It's not asking if the queen is a lizard. It's asking what level of commitment did oil lobbies have in all this. Perfectly reasonable question if you asking me.

    Massive investments are done during a war and arent only oil related. There's land, structures, other resources, and then rebuilding and so on and on. Excuse my skepticism when I hear x war was fought to liberate x people. Libya is unstable. Gheddafi was mad but Libya wasn't the worst country up there.

  8. #1448
    Scarab Lord Skroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,933
    Edward Snowden just today...

    -Calls US efforts to get him unlawful (they aren't).

    -Invokes World War II and declares he is standing up against crimes against the peace and against humanity (right...............)

    -Calls Russia a defender of the powerless, the day after deceased human rights lawyer Sergei Magnitsky is posthumously convicted of Tax evasion.


    You can stick a fork in Edward Snowden. He's done.

  9. #1449
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    18,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Sorry but allow me to ask questions when I see their names in between who funded the rebels. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask especially in light of the deals total had to shut with Iran.
    It's not asking if the queen is a lizard. It's asking what level of commitment did oil lobbies have in all this. Perfectly reasonable question if you asking me.
    Reasonable question, sure. But you can't just draw the conclusion, "The war was fought because we wanted to take the resources." That's an unfounded conclusion from your reasonable questions.

    Massive investments are done during a war and arent only oil related. There's land, structures, other resources, and then rebuilding and so on and on. Excuse my skepticism when I hear x war was fought to liberate x people. Libya is unstable. Gheddafi was mad but Libya wasn't the worst country up there.
    Sure, but those investments don't require a war. The government could just decide to invest in infrastructure in the US instead. Besides, you aren't going to get me to feel sorry for investing a ton of money in a foreign country after a war. Most countries rather like foreign investment.
    Well 1, 2, 3, take my hand and come with me
    Because you look so fine
    And I really wanna make you mine

  10. #1450
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    -Calls Russia a defender of the powerless, the day after deceased human rights lawyer Sergei Magnitsky is posthumously convicted of Tax evasion.
    Much in the same way that Ghengis Khan was a defender of the Chinese.

  11. #1451
    The Lightbringer Naxere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    45.0061° N, 93.1567° W
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    You can stick a fork in Edward Snowden. He's done.
    You keep repeating this. I believe I recall you saying when this first became news, that he'd be "hunted down like a dog." So far, (thankfully) you've been wrong.

  12. #1452
    Scarab Lord Skroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Erenax View Post
    You keep repeating this. I believe I recall you saying when this first became news, that he'd be "hunted down like a dog." So far, (thankfully) you've been wrong.
    Oh no. I haven't at all. In fact, I've been proven entirely right.

    The ENTIRE POINT of the conference was to get him infront of cameras. He has no other options. He can't make it to South America. China threw him out. He has no choice but to stay in Russia, but Russia really doesn't want him, especially since Vladmir Putin wants a summit with Obama before the G20 in September. And the US made clear, the only way Putin gets that meeting, is if Snowden is gone.

    And have you seen him? He's lost 30lbs in the past month. His clothes barely fit him. He's wasting away.

    So in fact, my side is winning. Snowden has no avenue to escape. No country that wants to risk their relations with the US. He just has the hope that Russia will decide that they value him over a meeting with Obama in September... which they won't.

    Moreover the well has been poisoned. No one will ever dare try to do something like Snowden did for a while, and no country will pay half as much attention to it. So I would happily say my statement qualifies. One month later, Snowden is running out of defenses. Everything for him, such as making his way to Latin America has moved from the possible to the impossible in the last two weeks. Now Russia is his last chance, and they have absolutely no reason to do that.

  13. #1453
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Well first of all, I don't buy that a democratic nation could start a war over resources without that nation itself and anyone else knowing that it's about resources besides their government. That is, I don't think they could start such a war without making it obvious enough that it's about resources. Second, I don't see how any Western nation could gain anything concerning resources if a dictator is overthrown. Dictators don't stop trade, you know.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Not everyone. You're forgetting about us naive folk, as opposed to you who watch too much action movies.

    Edit: He also didn't just reveal that. He revealed that companies such as Microsoft and Apple readily agree to let the NSA spy away at regular civilians. What I find puzzling is how some Americans would never allow the NSA to spy on American citizens while it's perfectly fine if the NSA does that to foreigners (and they'd be as appalled by the discovery of the NSA doing just that, if it actually did that obviously, as the rest of us non-Americans, as well as some Americans themselves, are about the fact that foreigners are getting spied on with such magnitude). After all, we foreigners don't have rights since we're not Americans.

    By the way, if there's a threat of terrorists, it's likelier you'll find it in America itself as opposed to overseas. It doesn't even make sense to spy on random foreign civilians and not do the same to random local civilians. 9/11 was committed by people living on American soil for months before the attacks itself, if you don't remember correctly.
    In the particular case of Libyan oil, having a mad patriotic dictator that hates the west doesn't help concluding deals. Fheddafi didn't really bend THAT much over.
    This is much better for oil companies.

  14. #1454
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Massive investments are done during a war and arent only oil related. There's land, structures, other resources, and then rebuilding and so on and on. Excuse my skepticism when I hear x war was fought to liberate x people. Libya is unstable. Gheddafi was mad but Libya wasn't the worst country up there.
    You're forgetting that the war wasn't started by Western governments. The war was started by rebels. Western governments saw an opportunity to help those rebels and ensure a country goes from a dictatorship to a democracy which is in the end the better alternative for everyone. Similar to Libya, the US didn't help my country during the independence war because of oil (there ain't any of it here), they did it because they wanted to help a country make a proper transition from communism to democracy. Whether they did it for their own interests ('cause in the end it's in the interest of the US to have as least communist countries in the world as possible) or purely out of altruism is inconsequential.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    In the particular case of Libyan oil, having a mad patriotic dictator that hates the west doesn't help concluding deals. Fheddafi didn't really bend THAT much over.
    This is much better for oil companies.
    Except oil companies don't make deals with governments behind closed doors. They don't run countries. They don't order governments around. They too are inconsequential.

  15. #1455
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    Reasonable question, sure. But you can't just draw the conclusion, "The war was fought because we wanted to take the resources." That's an unfounded conclusion from your reasonable questions.



    Sure, but those investments don't require a war. The government could just decide to invest in infrastructure in the US instead. Besides, you aren't going to get me to feel sorry for investing a ton of money in a foreign country after a war. Most countries rather like foreign investment.
    Sure. Maybe I came a bit too frontal, but in fairness it was an answer to a similar comment on the opposite side though (or was it? I'm getting old). What I mean is I could say "just because they say its about freeing the people doesn't mean it is.

    Well... Buying rubble in the middle of Baghdad or any city has an enormous comeback per dollar invested.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    You're forgetting that the war wasn't started by Western governments. The war was started by rebels. Western governments saw an opportunity to help those rebels and ensure a country goes from a dictatorship to a democracy which is in the end the better alternative for everyone. Similar to Libya, the US didn't help my country during the independence war because of oil (there ain't any of it here), they did it because they wanted to help a country make a proper transition from communism to democracy. Whether they did it for their own interests ('cause in the end it's in the interest of the US to have as least communist countries in the world as possible) or purely out of altruism is inconsequential.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Except oil companies don't make deals with governments behind closed doors. They don't run countries. They don't order governments around. They too are inconsequential.
    It kind of is consequential instead cause it means the private companies investing in it wouldn't be concerned about the people once its over but rather maximise the profit (can you blame them?).
    I praise your optimism but I really can't see our society looking after the poor and desperate.

  16. #1456
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I praise your optimism but I really can't see our society looking after the poor and desperate.
    Well, Western countries donate like 2% of their GDP to poorer countries... Society looks after the poor and desperate at least to some degree.

  17. #1457
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    Edward Snowden just today...

    -Calls US efforts to get him unlawful (they aren't).
    Well individuals do have the right to seek and enjoy asylum according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Which the US ratified). And the US is most certainly engaging in special enforcement tactics to prevent him from reaching any of the nations that have offered him asylum.

    -Invokes World War II and declares he is standing up against crimes against the peace and against humanity (right...............)
    He invoked the Nuremberg Principles which do, in fact, state that individuals and conscientious objectors are responsible for their actions even under superior orders. This translates to a duty to defy orders if they are against international law.

    -Calls Russia a defender of the powerless, the day after deceased human rights lawyer Sergei Magnitsky is posthumously convicted of Tax evasion.
    The man died in prison awaiting trial for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and tax evasion.

    You can stick a fork in Edward Snowden. He's done.
    If he were done leaking, Russia would have granted him asylum (Those are their terms).

  18. #1458
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Well, Western countries donate like 2% of their GDP to poorer countries... Society looks after the poor and desperate at least to some degree.
    Well there is plenty to say about western charity too actually

  19. #1459
    Scarab Lord Skroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Well individuals do have the right to seek and enjoy asylum according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Which the US ratified). And the US is most certainly engaging in special enforcement tactics to prevent him from reaching any of the nations that have offered him asylum.
    And yet, 200 Countries in the world, and exactly 3 have offered him asylum. Apparently 197 countries are behavior unlawfully? Furthermore he doesn't qualify as a refugee.

    This pretty much sums up why he is not protected by the UDHR as a refugee.

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/24...snt-a-refugee/

    Most of the countries in the world have signed the treaty or its 1967 amendment, including the U.S., China, Russia and Ecuador. (Hong Kong hasn’t, and China hasn’t required it to abide by the convention since it took control of the territory, but that’s moot now that Snowden’s in Russia.)

    So for Snowden to be a refugee with a valid claim to asylum he would have to argue two things. First, he’d have to show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion. Second, he’d have to show that the crime he has admitted to, namely leaking highly classified documents, is either nonserious or political.

    That’s a tall order on all counts. Snowden isn’t being persecuted for holding a political opinion, he’s being prosecuted for violating U.S. law. Few countries in the world, if any, have greater protections for freedom of expression of political beliefs than the U.S. (Germany bans public espousal of Nazism, Russia criminalizes offenses to various public figures, Ecuador just passed a restrictive press law, and so on.) If Snowden wanted to express his opinion about the surveillance state he could do so with near absolute protection under the First Amendment.

    But even he says that’s not what he’s doing. Which gets to the second hurdle he has to clear. Snowden has admitted to breaking the law and said he is performing serious civil disobedience. In his first interview after coming forward as the source of the documents exposing the NSA’s broad surveillance programs, he said of his actions, “When you are subverting the power of government that’s a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy.”

    That was a particularly impressive and well-thought-out statement, but it also appears to be a stark admission that he is committing the kind of serious crime that denies him the protection of a refugee.


    He invoked the Nuremberg Principles which do, in fact, state that individuals and conscientious objectors are responsible for their actions even under superior orders. This translates to a duty to defy orders if they are against international law.
    The Nuremberg Principles apply to unlawful orders. Everyone knows that. There is absolutely nothing unlawful about the NSA program. It was democratically passed by congress, signed off by the President, and overseen by the court.

    It may be unpopular. It may be controversial. It may even be outside the spirit of the constitution (I would say it isn't, but thats another debate). But it's domestic and international legal status is beyond question... which is why it isn't being brought up. This is something people do here, and across the world all the time. They call something unlawful because they disagree with it. That's not good enough and has never been.

    In the US Military for example, you are REQUIRED to disobey unlawful orders. But when you do, you're not off the hook. You undergo a Court Martial to ascertain the facts of non-compliance. They determine, via the Uniform Code if the order given was lawful or not, and if the servicemember was correct in refusing to obey it. Like anything else in the world, the validity of person's opinion is subject to legal findings. I think that's kind of self-evident that this is fair?

    Well the same thing applies to Edward Snowden, or even George Zimmerman (who may think he was entirely right in shooting Travyon Martin). Whatever people think or do on a personal level, it is up to a LEGAL process to ascertain the legitimacy of that action.

    Snowden can invoke the Nuremberg Principles all he likes. He can do it until he loses 25 more lbs and loses another month of his life in the airport. The fact remains, he is no more right than anyone who does something they are convinced they are absolutely right in doing, until a COURT finds that he was justified in his action or not. And as we know, Snowden doesn't wan't to be brought before a court. So his invokation of the Nuremberg Principles are entirely hollow. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to say "I am defying unlawful orders", but... who the hell is Edward Snowden to decide what is lawful or not after that first act of objection? The answer is he's goddamn no one. This is where courts to resolve legal disputes come into play, a process alleged Constitution worshiper Edward Snowden has completely spit in its face over.



    The man died in prison awaiting trial for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and tax evasion.
    Do you really want to argue the legitimacy of Russia's persecution of Magnitsky just to protect Edward Snowden? That's extraordinarily perverse if you do.



    If he were done leaking, Russia would have granted him asylum (Those are their terms).
    No. Russia doesn't want this. They very clearly don't want this. This is a wrecking ball for their plans. They have the G20 in September, the Sochii Olympics next year. They are trying to ramp up foreign investment (especially American investment) now that oil is well below the $120 per barrel they need to not run a deficit. Putin is desperate to cut another nuclear deal with Obama down below 1000 warheads just so he can save money on Russia's immense nuclear apparatus and reinvest it in conventional forces. Putin want's a Summit with Obama before the G20 to help assert his domestic and international standing as a peer.

    Russia has absolutely no reason under the sun to do more than the absolutel bare minimum for Snowden. A few years ago, I'm sure Putin would have given him asylum. Instead, like China, he mostly wants the problem gone.

    I forsee this ending one of two ways.
    (1) He'll be tossed on a chartered plane of Venezuela, which is fine in my opinion, because Venezuela will have a change of government eventually, especially since Maduro barely one last year, and you can believe the first thing the American ambassador will do, will be to ask Edward Snowden, by then a forgotten person living in obscurity, as an offering.

    (2) He'll be arrested an offered up to Obama as a "Welcome" gift. Because he'll become another Bradley-manning style "problem" for America (that is to say, he'll rile up people online and people of certain liberal persuasions but be irrelevant to most Americans).

    Either way, he's completely screwed. Short term or long term.

  20. #1460
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    18,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Sure. Maybe I came a bit too frontal, but in fairness it was an answer to a similar comment on the opposite side though (or was it? I'm getting old). What I mean is I could say "just because they say its about freeing the people doesn't mean it is.

    Well... Buying rubble in the middle of Baghdad or any city has an enormous comeback per dollar invested.
    It's almost certainly NOT only about freeing the people. If it were, we'd be in Syria right now, and North Korea. It's also about how easily the regime change can be accomplished and how the new regime will affect things for us in the future. Global energy stability is a factor. Regional power balance is a factor. Whether or not the leaders of the country support subversive groups is a factor. Whether or not the leader is abusing human rights is a factor. I don't like it when people reduce the whole story down to "Well you just attack countries for their resources," when the whole resource thing may have been a non-factor or a minor factor or a major factor in the whole mix of hundreds of factors that made the decision.
    Well 1, 2, 3, take my hand and come with me
    Because you look so fine
    And I really wanna make you mine

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •