US officials sail away with $325M, Russian-owned superyacht

Uhhh....Bill....former Yugoslavia kinda ceased to exist in 1991-1993ish .....B-e-f-o-r-e NATO became fully engaged in around 1998 and onwards.

 

1999 isn't "1991-1993ish"

You must be thinking of when NATO was bombing the **** out of Bosnia.

 

What right do you have to keep it? What happened to property rights and rule of law?

Or is the property of all foreign citizens fair game when your country is at war with the government they have citizenship in?

 

You already know the answers to your questions.

Property rights and rule of law went down the toilet in the West.

 

I think many of those on the Left are in favor of government seizing any rich person's yacht. It doesn't take a very big excuse.

 

I believe it right to keep and sell. It costs money to aid Ukraine

 

I believe you're right. Communism is the "everyone" and as Barrack said, you didn't make that.. the assumption is that whatever you did, you did it for everyone else... And of course, that never works out because the "elite" then take advantage of what you can do for them. Lefties just believe that they are soooo smart that folks will just give them stuff..... And if you don't, they'll use guns to take it.

 

Uhhh....no Bill....like I said....ex-Yugo ceased well before any NATO involvements.

 

I just laugh

 

The Constitution does not protect non-citizens. In addition, it only demands due-process which was followed.

 

This is false.

 

Show me the Court Orders.

 

Just a thought. Are you willing to go to war over the material Russia has already stolen from U.S. citizens worth for more than Bill Gate's yacht? How about the U.S. citizens Russia has murdered? Have you read anything outside of Sputnik news? Or did something like that not occur to you?

 

Sorry, you have to be somewhat more specific than that. You do sound like an apologist though for the lawlessness of the current Biden administration. I understand that facts and specifics aren't your friend here. So I get you might not be able to provide any specific examples. It really is going to effect your credibility here. Honestly, I can say I've NEVER read Sputnik news, or for that matter other propaganda laden entertainment outlets. Sorry, you comment hasn't been received perhaps in the manner you thought your burn might be, but, well, at least I laughed. Thanks for that.

 

Only to the well indoctrinated, those whose worldview is constructed by the mainstream media.

 

Correct. Spot-on.

 

Because of your post to me, having not known anything about Yugoslavia I had to educate myself and watched a few videos that went through it's history and Nato's involvement.

By the time Nato did get involved there was no more Yugolsavia. It was split into 5 countries or states. And by "getting involved, I mean actual military intervention." Not some whispered political nonsense you may try to swing back at me.

"After an economic and political crisis in the 1980s and the rise of nationalism, Yugoslavia broke up along its republics' borders, at first into five countries, leading to the Yugoslav Wars."

However you are correct in that Nato got involved when they created a humanitarian cease fire zone that wasn't respected which lead to some Nato bombings. And one could look at that as interference especially since after the war croatia became a Nato member.

Now you could draw comparisons I suppose to what is playing out with Russia and Ukraine. But then Putin isn't coming in all humanitarian like he's stating and the ******* tipped his hand recently when he stated comparisons to himself and Peter the great as they are both "claiming land". I gave him the benefit of the doubt to his intentions regarding the expansion of Nato into Ukraine. But it would seem that he has his eyes on reclaiming all lost territory from the old Soviet Union.

That's not going to ****ing happen.

Beyond the fact that Sweden and Finland are actively scrambling to join Nato, they have signed an agreement that should Russia try to aggress on one, it will aggress on both. The reason for this is very simple;

THEY DON'T WANT TO BE ****ING RUSSIAN. lol.

Becoming a NATO member, one doesn't loose their sovereignty. They are simply part of a collective. On the other hand, if Russia conquers Ukraine for example...there is no more Ukraine. No more sovereignty. That's the big ****ing difference between the two.

So no sir. You don't get your fancy boat back.

 

You must have stopped short of learning about the NATO bombing campaigns in the former states of Yugoslavia...Bosnia, et al....leading up to the NATO bombings that destroyed the rest of Yugoslavia.

Basically everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Now go learn about Camp Bondsteel....then you'll know why NATO had such a keen interest in bombing Yugoslavia.

 

Clearly a dismal failure on your part .. watching some CNN propaganda no doubt .. having no idea what what you were watching as indeed propaganda.

No worries though as none of this changes the fact that NATO "broke the rules" annexing territory from a sovereign nation -- and it matters not what the made up reasons were .. "Bad Precedent" - Do as we say-not as we do foreign policy.

As was foretold .. something so easy to predict even a moron would get it right ... Russia followed suit in Crimea .. and the pundits cried boo hoo hoo - despite the fact that Russia's "Reasons" were far better than Nato's "Reasons" .. not that reasons matter .. but just sayin.

and now you cheer that Piracy is now acceptable .. same "Do as we say-not as we do" mentality and same tears you will cry when Russia- China - Iran .. or some other nation you don't like engages in piracy.

Such fun the life of hypocrisy .. Laughing and salivating on self one day .. crying and salivating on self the next.

 

I think I actually made it very clear in plain in English within the post you just quoted. And you yourself just agreed when you stated that the NATO bombings happened in the FORMER states of Yugoslavia. The dispute was if NATO had an military impact on Yugoslavia breaking up. So to reitterate...it seems to me they did not. When they did their bombing campaigns, Yugoslavia was already split up into 5 different countries.

Now then I also want you to acknowledge the very important difference to what NATO is versus what Russia is doing. Russia is looking to conquer Ukraine via force. Ending Ukraine and absorbing it into Russian territory. NATO membership does not end a countries' sovereignty. It's a membership to a group/alliance. Those two things make a very clear fundamental difference when you compare Russia to NATO.

So again...no. You do not get your ****ing boat back.

 

I can't help you if you refuse to ignore basic history. You can't even click and read links

 

I told you I read when NATO first military intervened and it was after Yugoslavia broke up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force 1995
Yugoslavia broke up in 92.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia
"Between June 1991 and April 1992, four constituent republics declared independence (only Serbia and Montenegro remained federated)."

I also am now noting that you still refuse to acknowledge the reality of the difference between Russia and NATO. You get that ya? Even if I grant you everything you want to claim about NATO at the end of the day, NATO membership still allows for the nation to retain it's sovereignty. It's just membership. And any future elected leader can remove their nation from membership just as Trump was about too. But Russia is trying to remove Ukraine's sovereignty so at the end of the day, your NATO to Russia comparison is faulty at it's core.

You also refused now -on multiple posts- to acknowledge that Finland and Sweden's reaction to Russian aggression is to both apply for NATO membership as well as form their own mini alliance to insure their sovereignty against Russia because it's very evident that THEY DON'T WANT TO BE RUSSIAN.

So until you can come to grips with those very two damning points, we are done here. Your NATO comparison is garbage because NATO membership still insures the nation's sovereignty where as Russia's invasion/aggression does not.

They are never going to "leave Afghanistan" like America did. They are taking land and resources as their own. That's the difference here.

That's bottom line.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

And I don't give 2 's about Sweden or Finland. Both are ran by ignorant women, one of which would be violating a peace treaty with Russia if they joined NATO, in essence a de facto declaration of war.

Besides, who cares? Turkey has given the middle finger to them so unless that changes, they ain't gonna be NATO nothing.

The irony shouldn't be lost on anyone. Former NAZI allies wanting to join NATO while NATO supports Nazis in Ukraine.

 

Clearly you can't read. FROM YOUR LINK.



Did I not just educate you that Yugoslavia ceased to be a nation in 92? I even detailed you air strikes that happened in 95.

NATO had nothing to do with Yugoslavia breaking up into 5 separate countries.

NATO doesn't remove a country's sovereignty. (noticed how you avoided that one, chief)

Finland and Sweden have signed a defensive agreement that should one get attacked they both go to war. Nevermind that the UK also promised to intervene should either get attacked. Turkey can't stop that one.


The point in all this is very clear:

NOBODY WANTS TO JOIN BACK WITH RUSSIA. lol.

That's how "great" Russia is.

 

I see someone can't seem to read the title of the link nor can they comprehend the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased to exist after NATO bombed the **** out of it. That completed the final balkanization of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.