Mikhail Medved wrote:
> On May 5, 5:18 pm, Anton <anton.use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Moscow tells the Poles who runs Poland - Is that your idea of "logical
>> thinking"?
>>> I don't think pan Tusk is a man appointed by the Kremlin. He is just a
>>> man with whom it is possible to do business.
>> Luckily the Kremlin lacks the influence to do that. Not that Russia
>> wouldn't want to tell others who should be in their government.
> I don't need your childish lecture on sovereignity. Yes, if some
> country is led by an unacceptable leader, other countries tell
> influential groups to get rid of that leader.
No they don't. They have the right to their opinion, but the people in
that some country are the ones who decide if the leader stays or steps
down. It is called democracy.
> It's happening all the
> time.
Maybe in some parts of eastern europe, south america, asia and such
places.
> Of course, I am not advocating direct manipulation of elections from
> the outside or, God forbid, military action. Although Poland, as far
> as I remember, very recently went to a war with a very distant country
> with the goal of changing the government of that country.
>
>>> What does sovereignity have to do with it?
>> Sovereign countries elect their own representatives. Neo-imperialist
>> countries on the other hand tell other countries who they think is
>> good/not good to run that country.
> Grow up. All countries having resources to do so express their
> displeasure if some mad guy runs the neighboring country.
So what? If the 'countries having resources to do so' don't like the
other country's government they can, if they are smart, tell the voters
of that country that we don't get along with that person, and if you
plan to give a continued mandate to him, there is little prospects for
us to do any business with you - suit your selves.
In most cases the voters know who they vote for and what their
candidates stance is on certain key issues. Did it occur to you, that
perhaps the majority of them (Poles) _wanted_ that kind of leader?
Afterall they gave him the mandate to represent them.
> That
> displeasure takes forms of diplomatic notes, economic or political
> sanctions.
For civilized countries sanctions are extreme measures that are taken
only as a last resort. I don't think Finland has been handing out any
diplomatic notes or let alone sanctions (unless as part of a larger
unanimous, international boycott).
> Why not? If Poland wants to do business with Russia, it has to have a
> leader, who is an acceptable partner. It's that simple, really not a
> rocket science, I don't understand what part of it you don't get.
It is still THEIR CHOICE of leader - and they themselves might have the
opinion that he is doing what is in their interest. I don't understand
what part of it YOU don't get.
--
Anton
|
