What's new

Seriously, what?! Kerry tells Russia 'you don't invade a country on completely phony pretexts'

Albatross

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
-3
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The US Secretary of State spoke today of the unacceptability of invading a sovereign country on phony pretexts in order to assert one’s own interests in the 21st century. But no, he was not speaking about the United States, as one might have thought.

“You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” John Kerry said during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press. “This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century.”

Kerry has also threatened to isolate Russia economically and politically and warned of potential asset freezes and visa bans, adding to media and political hype that followed Russia authorization of sending a stabilization force in Crimea on official request from the authorities.

“There could be certainly disruption of any of the normal trade routine, there could be business drawback on investment in the country,” he said. “There could even be ultimately asset freezes, visa bans.”

Although Kerry was never challenged by the interviewer to comment in terms of that statement on Washington’s own constant threats to use force and military invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, those who watched the interview immediately smelled the hypocrisy.

“Since when does the United States government genuinely subscribe and defend the concept of sovereignty and territorial integrity? They certainly are not doing that at the moment in Syria,” Marcus Papadopoulos, commentator for ‘Politics First’ told RT. “They certainly did not do that when they attacked Libya. They certainly didn’t do that when they invaded Iraq. They certainly didn’t do that when they attacked Serbia over Kosovo and then later on recognized Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. The United States government merely pays lip service to sovereignty and territorial integrity, it picks and choses.”

Since the crisis in Ukraine escalated to a point where the lives of the Russian speaking population of Ukraine has become threatened, Kerry’s reaction comes, some believe, as the most ridiculous thus far, taking into account US own history of military actions all over the globe.

Following Russia’s parliament approval of potential deployment, other members of the G8 said they were putting preparations on hold for the planned summit of the group in Sochi on June 4 and 5.

The US also warned Russia that it risks losing its place in the Group of Eight developed countries over the deployment of troops in Crimea.

Canada in the meantime warned of "ongoing negative consequences" for Canada-Russia relations, if Russia pushes forward with military action.

This year Russia holds the presidency in G8 that includes the governments of the UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, Russia, USA, France and Japan.

Facts you need to know about Crimea and why it is in turmoil

Crimeans began protesting after the new self-imposed government in Kiev introduced a law abolishing the use of other languages for official documents in Ukraine. More than half the Crimean population are Russian and use only this language for their communication. The residents have announced they are going to hold a referendum on March 30 to determine the fate of the Ukrainian autonomous region.

Feeling a threat from the new central government of questionable legitimacy, a number of regions stood up against it. Thousands of people across eastern and southern Ukraine are flooding the streets of major cities, urging local authorities to disobey Kiev’s orders. The local population is calling the government in Kiev illegitimate and demanding that their local governments refuse to take orders from it.

Seriously, what?! Kerry tells Russia 'you don't invade a country on completely phony pretexts' — RT News
 
Sort of like invading Iraq on the pretext of nonexistent WMD's?

Where are those WMD's by the way?

And what happened to the "so-called" connection between Saddam and Al-qaeda? It turns out that Saddam actually hated Al-qaeda, and persecuted them ruthlessly!

Was there even a grain of truth to America's invasion of Iraq?

And has terrorism increased or decreased since the Iraq war? If you check the statistics, incidents of terrorism around the globe have increased exponentially since then.

The only ones who benefited from the Iraq war were the global terrorist groups themselves, it was the best recruiting platform they could ever hope for!

Certainly the one million dead Iraqi citizens did not benefit from it, nor did the subsequent victims of the exponential growth in terrorism all around the world benefit from it.
 
Last edited:
I want to see Soviet union rise again + Chinese and Pakistan alliance with Soviets too. We must admit that making bad relations with soviet were the worst things happen to us.

Are you crazy? the Mullah brigade of Pakistan are pro Saudi which in turn is a USA's stooge.
 
Sort of like invading Iraq on the pretext of nonexistent WMD's?

Where are those WMD's by the way?

And what happened to the "so-called" connection between Saddam and Al-qaeda? It turns out that Saddam actually hated Al-qaeda, and persecuted them ruthlessly!

Was there even a grain of truth to America's invasion of Iraq?

And has terrorism increased or decreased since the Iraq war? If you check the statistics, incidents of terrorism around the globe have increased exponentially since then.

The only ones who benefited from the Iraq war were the global terrorist groups themselves, it was the best recruiting platform they could ever hope for!

Certainly the one million dead Iraqi citizens did not benefit from it, nor did the victims of terrorism all around the world benefit from it.

Well, if nothing else it benefitted China immensely. The American weapons development slowed and changed the development strategy to creating weapons that would suit a war such as a war with Iraq.

While we been focusing on development of our weapon systems on how to take on a powerful enemy.

So the US is more powerful, but isn't really prepared to face an enemy like China, but we been developing specifically with the US in mind.

Not saying the US wouldn't win in a conventional war, but the gap has narrowed considerably since the early 2000s which otherwise wouldn't have.

So good war over all, at least for us.
 
Compare the Russia-Georgia War to the America-Iraq War, to see which is the more responsible world power.

The Iraq War was built on pure lies of WMD's, and Saddam's connection to Al-qaeda, neither of which made sense in the first place.

It was a war of aggression, launched halfway across the world, not retaliation against anything... but just pure aggression.

One million Iraqi civilians dead, a massive surge in regional and global terrorism, it ended up being the best terrorist recruiting platform in world history. Thanks to America, this past decade was mostly characterized by one word: "Terrorism".

Now look at the Russia-Georgia War. In that case, it was Georgia who attacked Russia first! And Russia could have easily swallowed the whole of Georgia into their own territory, but they instead gave power BACK to South Ossetia and Abkhazia!

It was a quick war against a nation that had attacked them first, with very little bloodshed and suffering.

The difference... is like the difference between day and night.
 
Well, if nothing else it benefitted China immensely. The American weapons development slowed and changed the development strategy to creating weapons that would suit a war such as a war with Iraq.

While we been focusing on development of our weapon systems on how to take on a powerful enemy.

So the US is more powerful, but isn't really prepared to face an enemy like China, but we been developing specifically with the US in mind.

Not saying the US wouldn't win in a conventional war, but the gap has narrowed considerably since the early 2000s which otherwise wouldn't have.

So good war over all, at least for us.

that is only judging from my Country's perspective
It does not mean the yankies' attacks are right.
 
Well, if nothing else it benefitted China immensely. The American weapons development slowed and changed the development strategy to creating weapons that would suit a war such as a war with Iraq.

While we been focusing on development of our weapon systems on how to take on a powerful enemy.

So the US is more powerful, but isn't really prepared to face an enemy like China, but we been developing specifically with the US in mind.

Not saying the US wouldn't win in a conventional war, but the gap has narrowed considerably since the early 2000s which otherwise wouldn't have.

So good war over all, at least for us.

Yes, it did benefit us "indirectly", by taking American attention off us, and focusing their attention on the Middle East, while wrecking the American economy with insurmountable debts and deficits.

It gave us a window of about a decade to grow without harassment.

However, that only further serves to show the utter stupidity of the Iraq War. Since America obviously did not intend for their major strategic rivals to benefit from it. In fact, all of America's major rivals benefited from it.
 
lol...
seriously..I feel...Russian are joking with american and Americans don't know how to respond...
they can't go for a war with Russians b'coz of nuke fear....and can't do much as long as russia is present in Ukraine.....
its like Putin trolling Obama......common buddy get me ..if you can....:partay::partay:
 
Sort of like invading Iraq on the pretext of nonexistent WMD's?

Where are those WMD's by the way?

And what happened to the "so-called" connection between Saddam and Al-qaeda? It turns out that Saddam actually hated Al-qaeda, and persecuted them ruthlessly!

Was there even a grain of truth to America's invasion of Iraq?

And has terrorism increased or decreased since the Iraq war? If you check the statistics, incidents of terrorism around the globe have increased exponentially since then.

The only ones who benefited from the Iraq war were the global terrorist groups themselves, it was the best recruiting platform they could ever hope for!

Certainly the one million dead Iraqi citizens did not benefit from it, nor did the subsequent victims of the exponential growth in terrorism all around the world benefit from it.
Cant agree more than this.... America is a hypocrite on this matter...
 
I want to see Soviet union rise again + Chinese and Pakistan alliance with Soviets too. We must admit that making bad relations with soviet were the worst things happen to us.
So you really want Soviet Union a past superpower to rise again and share the border with China an upcoming superpower while ignoring the fact completely that both of them are communist?
What else do you want a nuclear standoff in Asia could be evoking a nuclear war..
 
So you really want Soviet Union a past superpower to rise again and share the border with China an upcoming superpower while ignoring the fact completely that both of them are communist?
What else do you want a nuclear standoff in Asia could be evoking a nuclear war..
Are you crazy? the Mullah brigade of Pakistan are pro Saudi which in turn is a USA's stooge.

Nah Nah Dont call me crazy so sooner :P I am saying in the context what has USA benefitted us since 60's when we asked them for assistance in many factors in war and in economy. Putting sanctions or so. IMHO we should have had turned to soviets since beginning for any assistance and should not have taken part in soviet afghan war. China and Russians are communists Better then capitalists and are more of good relation type not embargoes and crap like USA does always. In short words they are better than USA. Further if Russians , asians and chinese make an alliance that we would make world more peaceful then ever as USA will start minding their damn job wont try to intervene in other businesses.
 
Back
Top Bottom