On May 12, 4:39 pm, Anton <anton.use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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).
You surely exclude a lot of countries out of "civilized world".
Finland, indeed, behaves in a civilized manner but that's more an
exception rather than a rule. And it is greatly valued by Finland's
partners.
On the other hand, the US hands out economic sanctions faster than an
actor playing Santa Claus hands out candies during Christmas
celebration. Poland and Lithuania tried to use various vetoes and
sanctions against Russia. Poland stopped only because Poland realized
that it hurt itself more than Russia, not because Poland considered
those measures extreme. Lithuania will certainly follow Poland's path,
its "freely chosen leader", who decided to take a stupid and
confrontational position, is doomed, whether you like it or not.
> > 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
|
