kgambit

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa. My understanding was that Finland and Sweden are capable of joining NATO now - their equipment is up to STANAG requirements, although Finland appeared to have some data technical compatibility issues with NATO systems, that have been solved. (I could be wrong so if you have up to date info suggesting otherwise please let me know.) http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/stockholm/06526.pdf The defense spending requirement (2% is required and Finland is at 1.4%) and the fact that the majority of people in each country are opposed to joining were the real drivers. The 2% restriction is currently met by only 7 of the existing members so it's not a real issue. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/1999/4/nato%20daalder/reportch3.pdf I'm not sure about the current defense spending in Sweden but I think the real obstacles to Sweden joining are political.

Well the primary air defense fighter of the Finnish Air Force now is the F-18. The "/A" was omitted for the Finnish designation apparently to underline the fact that it was for defensive operations only, though modernisation packages included the LITENING II targeting pod for target acquisition and prosecution with precision guided munitions. They have also acquired the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which their theoretical opponent has no real answer to (or at least one that is deployed widely) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder, which has HOBS capabilities though I do not know if helmet-mounted cueing systems were included in the deal (in any case, even without it the Bug still has its automatic acquisition modes of the AN/APG-73 to take some advantage of the missile's capabilities). AIM-120 AMRAAM acquisition was put on hold as in tests revealed that their motors had problems to work in cold (-54 degrees of Celsius, which is typical high altitude temperature, especially in winter), I am not sure if they have fixed problem and delivered missiles already or is they still on hold. The problem has been fixed. It turned out it was the result of changing the formula for the rocket propellant several times to comply with environmental regulations. This led to the rocket motors becoming unreliable. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Norwegian-Rocket-Makers-Save-AMRAAM-12-22-2012.asp

Obama's troop withdrawal in Iraq beat by two weeks an already mandated Dec 31, 2011 troop withdrawal. The status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established the following timelines: Article 5: ...... June 30, 2009, the appointed date for U.S. Forces withdrawal from cities, towns and villages. Article 24: All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/18/56116/unofficial-translation-of-us-iraq.html So Obama didn't do anything more than adhere to the pre-existing conditions of the SOFA. As a matter of fact, the Obama administration was actually engaged in negotiations to extend the SOFA (and US troop deployments) beyond 2011 but those negotiations broke down. It was the Iraq government which killed the deal not the US. The Iraqis refused to grant immunity for US Troops after 2011 and to submit a new SOFA through their own parliament, two conditions that the US demanded in order to extend the troop deployments beyond Dec, 2011. http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/ http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/11/iraqi_politicians_backed_into.php

You don't remember the troop surge? Look at this: He increased troop levels twice during his presidency. According to military reports, about 38,000 total U.S. personnel are in country which means current troop deployments are still higher than when he took office.

All of the evening games were snooze fests. Not one was closer than 10 pts at the half or 17 pts at the end.

Best game so far. Awesome back and forth for the entire game. Sad ending for the Shockers.

Wow. Stanford knocks off KU 60-57. Another 2 seed bites the dust. (ninja'd by Keyrock ... lol)

Now that was funny ..... Wow. Lousville is freezing cold from the field.

No big deal. Actually the stats surprised me. I figured Miami had been feasting on the pathetic East.

Season stat lines should read: Miami vs. East 28-13 .6829 vs. West 19-7 .7308 OKC vs. East 22-6 .7857 vs. West 29-12 .7073 Phoenix currently has three first round draft choices in the upcoming draft (#14, 17 and 29) and they get Minnesota's pick if it isn't in the top 13. Assuming they don't pull a David Kahn and totally screw up the draft, they could be scary good.

SFA ties the game versus VCU with 3.6 seconds left on a four pointer in regulation (Two thoughts - that is not a misprint and never foul a guy shooting a three) and wins in overtime, 77-75. Best game of the night! Another 5 seed bites the dust. That's 3 five seeds out so far and it would have been 4 in NCSt could shoot free throws worth a crap. Brackets are getting ravaged! Pyrrhic victory for Iowa State which won 93-75. Starting forward Georges Niang leaves game with fractured foot.

Gonzaga wins 85-77. 61 fouls and 81 free throws. Somebody steal the officials whistles and never give them back. PS: I simply checked the final box score. Couldn't bear to watch the end. Ugly game

I swear I could hear the wailing from Durham all the way to Asheville. lol

Plus there's the fact that though the EU needs energy, energy is all Russia has to give, as attempts to diversify have largely fallen flat. Though the 30% of energy that usually comes from Russia lost will be quite a loss, (relatively) short term alternatives exist for the EU. Nice summary Ros. Here are links to the RTS, MICEX and the GDR (select the 1Y charts) http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/RTSI$:IND http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/INDEXCF:IND http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/RUS:IM Here's an interesting article about the Russian oil and gas industry. http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/europe/the-political-economy-of-russian-oil-and-gas/ It does an excellent job of laying out exactly how dependent Russia's economy and budget are on sales to Europe. and just for grins: Caption: Your credit card has been blocked: to Putin holding packages labelled Crimea, Kharkiv and Donestsk (from Navalny web site)

Dayton vs Ohio State?

BBC has confirmed the TV station incident. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26653295

Thanks for the tip. That looked pretty good so I checked out some game play videos. Just bought it.

XCom Enemy Within is 75% off (3 hours 40 min left as of posting time) or $7.49.

I said I was done engaging you. Bye bye.

Is part of this perspective also from the standpoint of him basically going "peace out, yo" and leaving the country? In other words, by doing that (with apparently a verbal resignation), you're suggesting that parliament has recourse to replace him since he effectively abandoned his post? First, IMO a verbal resignation would be justification enough. IIRC Yanukovych originally left Kiev for Kharkiv on an unscheduled trip in the morning on the day of the removal vote. It is known that Yanukovych attempted to leave Kharkiv by plane on the 22nd but his flight from grounded. After contact with the Rada on the 22nd he didn't surface again until Feb 28 in Russia. Exactly when he left for Russia on the Feb 22 is unknown. So fleeing the country alone probably can't be used as an after the fact justification for the Feb 22 removal unless he indicated to the Rada that his intention was to seek asylum in Russia or he had already fled the country prior to the vote and the Rada was aware of that. On Feb 22, when he was finally located and contacted by the Rada, Yanukovych failed to provide the Rada with any assurances of a future date for his return in addition to delivering a verbal resignation. That is tantamount to abandoning his post and imo under those conditions the Rada is totally justified in claiming that Yanukovych is subject to removal since the abandonment is tantamount to a resignation. (And that is what the Rada claimed when they voted him out). I refer again to the comments made by the Rada that I quoted in post #146. PS: I was originally done with this thread but I thought you deserved the courtesy of a reply.

1) Accepting Yanukovych's resignation is not a procedure outside of those prescribed in the constitution. 2) The Rada claims that Yanukovych's failure to perform his duties was tantamount to resignation and is grounds for constitutional removal. Take the issue up with the Rada or the Ukrainian Constitutional Court (or at least the 12 remaining judges) if you disagree. Yes you were and I'm done with this. Have a nice evening.

No, you didn't say it wasn't lawful—but since it's an either/or situation, if you concede that the process by which he was dismissed was not impeachment, then you concede that it was unlawful, because there is no other instrument in the Ukrainian Constitution to dismiss him. QED As for whether you choose to accept any evidence that Yanukovych actually resigned as valid, well. Think what you will but again, the Constitution demands that the President tends his resignation before the Rada in session (art. 109). That has obviously not occurred because he hasn't been in Kiev since feb 21st. I did ask you nicely to stop putting words in my mouth. So let me make it clear - imo the process was legal. Is that clear enough for you now? Yanukovich offered his resignation verbally (again according to the Rada and which he later retracted) failed to sign legislation and failed to provide details about his absence or likely return, effectively leaving the presidency in a vacuum. Any reasonable person would consider the specific circumstances and call that a resignation of office and actionable by the Rada. It's not clear if Yanukovich's resignation (via phone to the Rada) was recorded or not. There are also reports that Yanukovich recorded an official statement of resignation. I can't find a transcript of the latter.

No. If failure to perform his duties (in this context signing the laws passed by the Rada) was grounds for removal, it would be under the only article dealing with the dismissal of the President. The fact that the Parliament requires the President to sign laws before they go into effect is actually a safety to ensure that Parliament does not overstep its bounds and encroaches upon executive power or breach the Constitution. This is another example of the good ol' separation of powers standing in the way of would-be revolutionaries. Where exactly are you getting the idea that he can be dismissed for failing to exercise his duties? The Rada saying it's legal because they made it legal is circular logic. No bandwagon either. It's just that impeachment is the only way the Rada has to kick the President out if he's not dead or medically incapable of performing his duties. It's good that you are no longer pretending it was a lawful dismissal. Sorry but I never said that I thought it was an illegal dismissal. So please quit putting words in my mouth. We're just going to have to disagree about impeachment being the only legal way that the Rada could remove Yanukovich. I think there's enough evidence that Yanukovich actually DID resign and his departure and failure to sign legally passed legislation was tantamount to surrendering / resigning his office. You obviously disagree.

Discharge in the context I quoted means "perform" not surrender or transfer: so your appeal to article 106 isn't pertinent. I do understand the context you are using and I agree that Yanukovich can't delegate or transfer his duties according to art106 but that's not the way that phrase is being used. To clarify failure to discharge the duties of his office means failure to perform the duties of his office. It might be a tenuous legal argument but it can be used as grounds for removal as it can be interpreted either as an act of resignation or inability to perform thru incapacity. And Yanukovich (at least according to several Rada members) allegedly tendered his resignation verbally. So your claim that the Rada's actions are unconstitutional is dubious. The illegal impeachment argument is at least dead since that wasn't the Rada's intent. Now the subsequent charges and arrest warrant filed might be seen as the precursor to a future bill of impeachment but it's a moot point. PS: Sorry for the on the fly edits.

No. The reversion of the constitution was legal - both times actually. It required a 2/3 majority and received 90% in 2004 and 85% (380 votes) in 2014. Yanukovich approved the reversion to the 2004 constitution (although his approval was not required) when he brokered the deal with the opposition in early February and the second parliamentary vote occurred on Feb 21. Regardless of which version you believe is legal (1996, 2004 or 2010), the articles pertinent to the removal of the president are the same in all versions. See chapter 5, articles 108 thru 112. Ukrainian Impeachment follows the UK nomenclature and procedure. Impeachment refers to the entire process culminating in removal from office. But the full process requires a bill of indictment, a trial and then a vote on removal. 328 votes would have been sufficient for the indictment phase. A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin. To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution. Yanukovich fled before a trial could be convened so there is a question of whether his departure is a de facto admission of guilt or an act of resignation. In either case, his departure makes him incapable of fulfilling his office and he can then be replaced. No. Yanukovych was first dismissed as President (with neither a preceptive Constitutional Court review nor a sufficient majority to do so), and then charged and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The legal procedure for removing the President from office for reasons other than explicit resignation, declaration of medical incompetence or death, was not observed. This, by definition, makes it unlawful. Exactly as unlawful as a local referendum on the independence of a territory. There is no provision in the Ukrainian Constitution allowing for the dismissal of the President if he leaves the capital for whatever reasons. The physical presence of Yanukovych is not required for the mandatory judicial review required for the impeachment process. Actually I was only disagreeing with Zo on the legality of the constitutional amendments. You need to reread exactly what I wrote. I'm not disputing that the 328 votes were not sufficient for removal by impeachment - what I said was that the 328 votes were sufficient for indictment. But I suggest you read the actual resolution passed by the Rada. Yanukovich was not removed from office thru an illegal impeachment process at all. He was removed for failure to discharge the duties of his office. You can drop the pretext that his "impeachment" was illegal because the Rada didn't attempt to impeach him at all. Again see the comments I highlighted. The RADA voted to remove Yanukovich for "non-performance of his duties" Here are the public statements: The resolution says Yanukovych removed himself from the constitutional powers. "The state cannot depend on the mood of the president, who has removed himself and whose whereabouts are unknown," Verkhovna Rada speaker Aleksander Turchinov said. "I want to say at about 15:00 Moscow time we've succeeded in contacting Yanukovych. In the presence of deputies Arseny Yatsenyuk (head of the Batkivshchina faction) has talked with him. Yatsenyuk proposed him to resign and he (Yanukovych) agreed," Turchinov said, adding "Later, talking with other people Yanukovych denied his statement." In an interview with UBR television channel, Yanukovych said he considered the events in Ukraine "a coup d'etat". "I'm going to resign and leave the country," Yanukovych said. http://www.sott.net/article/274466-Ukrainian-parliament-passed-resolution-on-Yanukovichs-resignation Here's a link with the summary of the Rada's activities for February 22: PLENARY MEETING OF THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE OF THE SEVENTH CONVOCATION WAS HELD ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2014 http://iportal.rada.gov.ua/en/news/News/News/88480.html Some excerpts: So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office. His removal did not require an impeachment process. You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want. It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this.