Malaysian airline crash

[Westdene Seagull]

Ok, cast your mind back [if you are old enough] to the Falklands conflict. The Argentinian air-force inflicted significant damage [sunk British ships and killed British forces] using French supplied Exocet missiles - were the French blamed for this? I recall the Thatcher government putting massive pressure on the French to cease further supply of these missiles, but the trigger was definitely in the hands of the Argentinians.

There's a world of difference between a government selling another recognised government arms and selling / giving them to an unrecognised, untrained and virtually leaderless set of rebels. It would be utterly irresponsible for me to sell bayonets to the gang down my street but perfectly acceptable for me to sell them to the British Army.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

One of the worlds top sites for blackbox analysis is at Farnborough.

Base of the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch - they have facilities to reconstruct [as best they can obviously] all the pieces of an aircraft for further clues as well as simulate the final flight of the aircraft. The cockpit voice recorder may also provide valued information - eg a rumour that some air traffic controller instructed them to descend?? will be evidenced. May even be a voice that says something like "Feck me, is that a missile coming our way ..... boom!"

However, if these are in Russian hands, they may never see the light of day ...

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Interesting post ? If correct what did American airlines and BA know that made them change route ?

That the cost of a little extra fuel to divert round a potentially dangerous area and add a few extra minutes to the journey ETA is a good risk management option. Malaysian Airlines do things a little more on the cheap [eg MH370 not using optional extra data feeds to RR] so fly direct, save fuel and time, and to hell with the risk - oh $hit ......

 

[symyjym]

I do not know where something like that would be written down, surely a country has control over it's own land and belongings. It's that common sense thing again.

I don't think it is as straight forward as that historically.

Crimea serves Russia as an advantage in the Black Sea to protect their gateway to the Mediterranean and the rest of the world, and is as strategically important to them as Gibraltar is to us.

It is similar to Cyprus when 1960, we allowed Cyprus to become an independent Republic, free from British control. Within the agreement, two Sovereign Base Areas were identified as real estate that would remain as British sovereign territory and therefore remain under British jurisdiction.

Cyprus is very important in the Middle East in this regard.

As it stands the Crimea is a military outpost like Gibraltar and Cyprus, so I can understand why the Russians still needs access to their military bases there and not get kicked out by the Ukraine, as no other country would be happy with it happening to them. I don't think America would be very happy if we gave up Gibraltar or Cyprus as these outposts are also important to them.

 

[martyn20]

I don't think it is as straight forward as that historically.

Crimea serves Russia as an advantage in the Black Sea to protect their gateway to the Mediterranean and the rest of the world, and is as strategically important to them as Gibraltar is to us.

It is similar to Cyprus when 1960, we allowed Cyprus to become an independent Republic, free from British control. Within the agreement, two Sovereign Base Areas were identified as real estate that would remain as British sovereign territory and therefore remain under British jurisdiction.

Cyprus is very important in the Middle East in this regard.

As it stands the Crimea is a military outpost like Gibraltar and Cyprus, so I can understand why the Russians still needs access to their military bases there and not get kicked out by the Ukraine, as no other country would be happy with it happening to them. I don't think America would be very happy if we gave up Gibraltar or Cyprus as these outposts are also important to them.

Crimea is very different to Gibraltar, Crimea belongs to Ukraine, Russia has special permission to have naval bases there and all the security needed to protect those ports, they do not have control of the rest of Crimea. They have just come out of their ports and taken control of the rest of a huge land area.
The size of the area Russia legally has control of in Crimea (the navel bases) is actually about the size of the whole of Gibraltar so in that way they are similar

 

[Hyperion]

The leeds university student Richard Mayne, was in his flat in halls and then lived with last year as well, he was a great guy, truely one of the good ones.

Well I am very sorry to hear that. Condolences

 

[The Spanish]

I don't think it is as straight forward as that historically.

Crimea serves Russia as an advantage in the Black Sea to protect their gateway to the Mediterranean and the rest of the world, and is as strategically important to them as Gibraltar is to us.

It is similar to Cyprus when 1960, we allowed Cyprus to become an independent Republic, free from British control. Within the agreement, two Sovereign Base Areas were identified as real estate that would remain as British sovereign territory and therefore remain under British jurisdiction.

Cyprus is very important in the Middle East in this regard.

As it stands the Crimea is a military outpost like Gibraltar and Cyprus, so I can understand why the Russians still needs access to their military bases there and not get kicked out by the Ukraine, as no other country would be happy with it happening to them. I don't think America would be very happy if we gave up Gibraltar or Cyprus as these outposts are also important to them.

gibraltar is still a diplomatic thorn in our side and decolonisation of cyprus was a disaster (funnily enough its the 40th anniversary of the invasion today).

The sovereign bases are very much on the table for a solution, Cyprus is not as trategically important as you think nowadays, especially as the occupying power are Nato's largest army and the US military are granted access to the occupied areas anyway.

 

[The Spanish]

Crimea is very different to Gibraltar, Crimea belongs to Ukraine, Russia has special permission to have naval bases there and all the security needed to protect those ports, they do not have control of the rest of Crimea. They have just come out of their ports and taken control of the rest of a huge land area.
The size of the area Russia legally has control of in Crimea (the navel bases) is actually about the size of the whole of Gibraltar so in that way they are similar

martyn you seem to think there is some sort of international law that defends sovereignty or the legal status of nations, or territorial rights, above and beyond sheer muscle and power and influence. That's the reality of the world, your view is somewhat 2d.

Cyprus and Gibraltar are classic examples. Britain maintains its position in Gibraltar through military and diplomatic force, and in Cyprus Greek Turkish UN and British troops stationed on the island.

Crimea belongs to Ukraine and it's 'unacceptable' what Russia is doing, lol. Someone should tell 'em.

 

[martyn20]

martyn you seem to think there is some sort of international law that defends sovereignty or the legal status of nations, or territorial rights, above and beyond sheer muscle and power and influence. That's the reality of the world, your view is somewhat 2d.

Cyprus and Gibraltar are classic examples. Britain maintains its position in Gibraltar through military and diplomatic force, and in Cyprus Greek Turkish UN and British troops stationed on the island.

Crimea belongs to Ukraine and it's 'unacceptable' what Russia is doing, lol. Someone should tell 'em.

So there is no sovereignty? Borders mean nothing?
The law is the law and if you think muscle, which I assume you mean force, is greater than law you have a very mixed up head. Putin might want to invade all it's neighbours and take the land for himself but it's against international law. Bully Boys will never be greater than the law, it does happen but it is not correct and will never be a norm or accepted as the 'reality of the world'
If one country marches into another country the international community can come together and try and reverse it as we have seen. Sadly this does not always apply when you are talking about Russia and China.....because they are too bloody big.

 

[Creaky]

There's a world of difference between a government selling another recognised government arms and selling / giving them to an unrecognised, untrained and virtually leaderless set of rebels. It would be utterly irresponsible for me to sell bayonets to the gang down my street but perfectly acceptable for me to sell them to the British Army.

Wasn't that exactly what the US did when arming the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan

 

[Triggaaar]

martyn you seem to think there is some sort of international law that defends sovereignty or the legal status of nations, or territorial rights, above and beyond sheer muscle and power and influence.

It may idealistic, but surely that's the ideal we should be fighting for. If not, then what's the point in ever discussing any rights to land, let's just all go to war and see who wins.

 

[The Spanish]

So there is no sovereignty? Borders mean nothing?
The law is the law and if you think muscle, which I assume you mean force, is greater than law you have a very mixed up head. Putin might want to invade all it's neighbours and take the land for himself but it's against international law. Bully Boys will never be greater than the law, it does happen but it is not correct and will never be a norm or accepted as the 'reality of the world'
If one country marches into another country the international community can come together and try and reverse it as we have seen. Sadly this does not always apply when you are talking about Russia and China.....because they are too bloody big.

like gibraltar or cyprus?

i havent got a mixed up head martyn, this is fact and the reality. 'international law' does not really exist, in the sense you perceive it for some reason.

 

[martyn20]

like gibraltar or cyprus?

i havent got a mixed up head martyn, this is fact and the reality. 'international law' does not really exist, in the sense you perceive it for some reason.

That's foolish thinking, Gibraltar is not being kept British by armed guards on the border fighting back Spanish invaders, there is Law even though Spain and some in the EU do not recognise it. The Spanish government and the Spanish armed forced recognise the border and do not cross it.
I cannot comment on Cyprus I simply do not have the knowledge on that subject to discuss it properly.

 

[Creaky]

So there is no sovereignty? Borders mean nothing?
The law is the law and if you think muscle, which I assume you mean force, is greater than law you have a very mixed up head. Putin might want to invade all it's neighbours and take the land for himself but it's against international law. Bully Boys will never be greater than the law, it does happen but it is not correct and will never be a norm or accepted as the 'reality of the world'
If one country marches into another country the international community can come together and try and reverse it as we have seen. Sadly this does not always apply when you are talking about Russia and China.....because they are too bloody big.

This paragraph from the judgement by the International Court of Justice over the Kosovo question is worth reading.

The Court first notes that during the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there were numerous instances of declarations of independence, often strenuously opposed by the State from which independence was being declared . Sometimes a declaration resulted in the creation of a new State, at others it did not. In no case, however, does the practice of States as a whole suggest that the act of promulgating the declaration was regarded as contrary to international law. On the contrary, State practice during this period points clearly to the conclusion that international law contained no prohibition of declarations of independence. During the second half of the twentieth century, the international law of self-determination developed in such a way as to create a right to independence for the peoples of non-self-governing territories and peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation. A great many new States have come into existence as a result of the exercise of this right. There were, however, also instances of declarations of independence outside this context. The practice of States in these latter cases does not point to the emergence in international law of a new rule prohibiting the making of a declaration of independence in such cases.

 

[Czechmate]

I don't claim to be an expert but didn't the previous president unilaterally decide he wasn't going to sign the agreement with the EU which resulted in the protests and then the he was voted out by 75% of Ukrainian MPs. You talk about outside influence but don't include Putin influencing Yanukovych not to sign the EU agreement.

Putin probably did influence the previous president just like the US does now with most countries and if he didn't sign the agreement then the parliament could of voted the old president out with two thirds of a majority but they did nothing until the coup .

 

[Triggaaar]

like gibraltar or cyprus?

Yes.

The thing is, every single country in the world was taken by force and one time or another (going back to nomads and tribes etc). But what's the right thing to do now? Should we have no rules, and let those with power take whatever they like? Or should the international community agree which people own which land, and fight to protect those rights - and if so, what date shall we go back to, to determine those rights? Gibraltar has been under British control longer than America has been under American control.

 

[symyjym]

Yes.

The thing is, every single country in the world was taken by force and one time or another (going back to nomads and tribes etc). But what's the right thing to do now? Should we have no rules, and let those with power take whatever they like? Or should the international community agree which people own which land, and fight to protect those rights - and if so, what date shall we go back to, to determine those rights? Gibraltar has been under British control longer than America has been under American control.

Yep, it is only defined by man sticking a flag and fence around a claim.

I could even say that it is my right to take our monarchy down and replace it with myself as King. Admittedly I cannot be bothered, but it is my right to do this historically.

Countries will be arguing over patches of the Moon and Mars one day and this will probably sooner than we think. If I could just get there first I would natrually stake my claims on them and declare myself as King of both new worlds.

 

[Creaky]

Yes.

The thing is, every single country in the world was taken by force and one time or another (going back to nomads and tribes etc). But what's the right thing to do now? Should we have no rules, and let those with power take whatever they like? Or should the international community agree which people own which land, and fight to protect those rights - and if so, what date shall we go back to, to determine those rights? Gibraltar has been under British control longer than America has been under American control.

Force has lost the 'moral' high ground and the current in phrase is 'self determination'.

There has been a lot of talk about Russia trying to take over Crimea by force but that ignores the will of the people of Crimea who have clearly demonstrated via the ballot box that they wish to depart from rule by Kiev and join Russia.

It can be argued that all Russia is doing is supporting the Crimea in their wish for 'self determination' against the forces of an aggresive state.

 

[martyn20]

Force has lost the 'moral' high ground and the current in phrase is 'self determination'.

There has been a lot of talk about Russia trying to take over Crimea by force but that ignores the will of the people of Crimea who have clearly demonstrated via the ballot box that they wish to depart from rule by Kiev and join Russia.

It can be argued that all Russia is doing is supporting the Crimea in their wish for 'self determination' against the forces of an aggresive state.

Show me where the Ukrainian armed forces attacked Russians inside Crimea?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

History tells us many wars have been fought over this region and history has a history of repeating.