Author Topic: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?  (Read 2396 times)

James

  • Guest
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2014, 02:20:42 PM »
We promised to protect Ukraine’s borders, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, plain and simple, would be the same thing if the libs succeeded in everyone losing the right to own a gun, and then when someone enters your home to steal and hurt you, you then call the police and they say sorry, we are not coming to help you.

You make a promise you keep it. 

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2014, 03:12:00 PM »
Well i didnt see this coming.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2014, 04:31:51 PM »
We have treaty obligations in the region. We have those treaties to ensure things like trade routes and other economic interests. If we start ignoring things like this, it will get worse. At some point we could be facing adventurism on a NATO ally, and then there will be war. Better to stop him here with some sanctions and get a workable deal done then kick the can down the road. None of which involves troops now.

I admire the honesty.

Mccain said we should get involved not for the oil or strategic issues, but for "human rights"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-we-are-all-ukranians-now

LOL @ anyone in our govt giving a flying fck about a bunch of ruskies and ukranians capping each other. 

RagingBull

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2014, 05:16:10 PM »
You can't discount the mistakes made that lead to this fiasco.  It's like being "checked" in chess and on the verge of a checkmate and discounting the previous bad moves.

I've heard a lot of "Obama sucks!" about this Russian mess... About ten of those threads now.  Maybe fifteen.

So what's the answer?   I'm not asking, "What did obama do wrong?"...  I'm asking what the solution to this mess is.

Russians are in there... do we send in our own troops?  And if so, WHY?  Cause oil prices are affected by who puts in a puppet regime into Ukraine?  

RagingBull

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2014, 05:24:37 PM »
Remember when Bush sent US warship to the region over Georgia/Russia for humanitarian reasons?

I admire the honesty.

Mccain said we should get involved not for the oil or strategic issues, but for "human rights"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-we-are-all-ukranians-now

LOL @ anyone in our govt giving a flying fck about a bunch of ruskies and ukranians capping each other. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2014, 05:52:32 PM »
Remember when Bush sent US warship to the region over Georgia/Russia for humanitarian reasons?


I remember stone cold idiots on getbig, arguing in 2005, that we were in iraq to help the people of iraq and that it had nothing to do with oil, bases, or any other strategic reasons.  All about helping people.

We're talking about conservatives saying this.  unreal. 

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2014, 06:07:04 PM »
I was there for oil....
L

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2014, 06:12:02 PM »
I remember stone cold idiots on getbig, arguing in 2005, that we were in iraq to help the people of iraq and that it had nothing to do with oil, bases, or any other strategic reasons.  All about helping people.

We're talking about conservatives saying this.  unreal. 

They were spreading democracy and freeing a people from a ruthless dictator.   :D

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2014, 06:14:12 PM »
I think any love affair with this guy is way overblown.
...

Agreed.  Not everyone thinks so highly of Putin.  My egghead professor buddy sent me a link to an interesting article that's a great read if you're really interested in this whole situation (and I'm not so sure I am, TBH, lol):
(I've bolded what is, for me, the money paragraph below.)

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/will-putins-invasion-backfire

Will Putin's Invasion Backfire?
3 March 2014

Back in the early 1990s, when the Russian chauvinist Vladimir Zhirinovsky first reared his loony head, analysts began discussing the “Weimar Russia” scenario. Accordingly, the chaos of the late-Gorbachev period (Weimar) would be followed by the emergence of a strong man à la Adolf Hitler (Zhirinovsky), who would impose order, consolidate the nation, and lead it to some imagined form of glory.

The scenario didn’t work for crazy Vlad, but it turned out to be useful in understanding subsequent developments in Russia. The chaotic period of Boris Yeltsin’s presidency in the 1990s proved to be similar to Weimar Germany in the 1920s: in both cases, imperial collapse, economic hardship, and political humiliation were blamed on democracy and the democrats. And Vladimir Putin turned out to be Russia’s version of the Führer. Both came to power legally, developed cults of the personality, dismantled democracy and made the trains run on time, employed chauvinism and neo-imperialism to legitimize their rule, remilitarized their states and promised to make them great powers, and made it their mission to in-gather ethnic brethren in neighboring states.

I’ve been writing for several years now that Putin’s system has all the features of a “fascistoid” state (see “Fascistoid Russia,” March/April 2012). I had defined fascism as a non-democratic, non-socialist political system with a domineering party, a supreme leader, a hyper-masculine leader cult, a hyper-nationalist, statist ideology, and an enthusiastically supportive population. And I had argued in the March 2010 issue of the Harriman Review (pdf) that, “although Putin’s Russia possesses many of the defining characteristics of fascism, it does so only to a greater or lesser extent. Having emerged haphazardly, these characteristics have not yet assumed the form of a consolidated political system; nor is it clear that they are here to stay. In that sense, Russia today resembles Germany in 1933 or Italy in the early-to-mid-1920s. Russia could follow in their footsteps, or it could falter and find its way back to some form of democracy or authoritarianism. Located somewhere between authoritarianism and fascism, today’s Russia may therefore be termed fascistoid.”

You can judge for yourself whether Putin’s Russia has become more or less fascist since 2010.

I had also concluded that:

    All fascist states scare their neighbors and provoke them to defend themselves against perceived threats emanating from the behavior and bluster of fascist leaders. In that sense, fascist hyper-nationalism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy—effectively creating the very enemies it invokes as the reasons for its justification. The soldiers and policemen who run fascist states have a natural proclivity to toughness and weaponry. The hyper-nationalism, state fetishes, and cult of hyper-masculinity incline fascist states to see enemies everywhere. The cult-like status of leaders encourages them to pound their chests with abandon. And the population’s implication in its own repression leads it to balance its self-humiliation with attempts to humiliate others. Unsurprisingly, Russia has taken to asserting its “rightful” place in the sun by engaging in energy blackmail vis-à-vis Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states, cyber-wars against Estonia, a war against Georgia, Polar land grabs, saber-rattling in the Crimea, and other forms of aggressive behavior.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine fits the above pattern all too neatly. The only question is: is the invasion comparable to Hitler’s annexation of German-inhabited Sudetenland, to Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria, or to Hitler’s attack on Poland? In the first case, Putin might go no farther than Crimea. In the second, he might try to occupy all of Ukraine. In the third, he’d settle for eastern Ukraine.

Whatever Putin’s choice, he’ll have to expend enormous resources on pacifying a hostile population. According to a public opinion survey conducted in mid-February by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, support for unification with Russia stands at only 26 percent in Ukraine’s east and 19 percent in the south. In Crimea, supposedly a hotbed of Russian irredentism, only 41 percent want to join Mother Russia.

The Crimean invasion may turn out to be the greatest strategic blunder of Putin’s career. Indeed, it could even lead to the end of Putinism.

If Putin knew his history, he’d know that nothing consolidates post-revolutionary regimes like invasions. Some counter-revolutionaries join the invaders, but most people put aside their differences and rally around the flag. The threat of existential annihilation strengthens post-revolutionary states, invigorates national identities, and encourages leaders to adopt radical change. The ongoing Ukrainian response to Putin’s invasion fits this bill to a tee: even the country’s top oligarchs, all Russian speakers, have condemned the invasion and rejected partition. When the crisis ends, Ukraine will be stronger and its diverse population may finally possess all the features of a modern nation. Ironically, Putin might accomplish what Ukraine’s elites have thus far failed to achieve: effective state building and genuine nation building. And that Ukrainian state and that Ukrainian nation are as unlikely to regard him with affection as they are certain to want good relations with a democratic Russia rather than Putin’s.

Article is continued at link.

pedro01

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4800
  • Hello Hunior
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2014, 06:41:10 PM »
We have treaty obligations in the region. We have those treaties to ensure things like trade routes and other economic interests. If we start ignoring things like this, it will get worse. At some point we could be facing adventurism on a NATO ally, and then there will be war. Better to stop him here with some sanctions and get a workable deal done then kick the can down the road. None of which involves troops now.

The border is a joke. The dems have no concept of border security. Obama is not interested in his foreign policy obligations nor Constitutional responsibilities at home.

The treaties in the Ukraine were signed specifically as an attempt to ensure it doesn't get rolled back into a growing Russia.

So now Russia is growing again. US has not legitimate claim because of some treaty that attempted to curtail that.

SCRUBS

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2014, 06:56:04 PM »
No, let them fight it out among themselves. We can sit on the sidelines and watch the show.

Mr.1derful

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4943
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2014, 03:34:16 AM »
I've heard a lot of "Obama sucks!" about this Russian mess... About ten of those threads now.  Maybe fifteen.

So what's the answer?   I'm not asking, "What did obama do wrong?"...  I'm asking what the solution to this mess is.

Russians are in there... do we send in our own troops?  And if so, WHY?  Cause oil prices are affected by who puts in a puppet regime into Ukraine? 

Stop trying to destabilize and isolate Russia and meddle with other nations.  Stop threatening sanctions.  Sanctions will backfire.  Countries are looking East economically, not West.  Want to threaten Russia?  Watch Russia and China collapse the dollar. 

James

  • Guest
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2014, 11:38:26 AM »
I guess a promise these days is worthless...


1994: Bill Clinton promised with signature to protect Ukraine if it gave up most of its Nuclear weapons and basically gutted its Military.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html



2005: Senator Obama pushed a bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine, even further gutting most of the ammunition stockpiles – crucial for keeping a standing army battle-ready – were destroyed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573557/Flashback-Senator-Obama-pushed-destruction-15-000-TONS-ammunition-400-000-small-arms-1-000-anti-aircraft-missiles-Ukraine.html



2009: United State re-affirms the 1994 agreement to protect and defend Ukraine. Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine and gave this promise in person: "We also re-affirmed the security assurances that the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom provided Ukraine in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-Vice-President-Biden-In-Ukraine

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2014, 11:43:00 AM »
Yeah but nobody takes anything Biden says seriously.
L

James

  • Guest
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2014, 12:14:59 PM »
Yeah but nobody takes anything Biden says seriously.

I agree, but Biden was speaking on behalf of the United States, and re-affirmed the 1994 promise to protect Ukraine. This was not some off the cuff remark but an Official Speech on behalf of the United States

The USA is either a Nation that keeps its promise, or we are not.

"The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character."

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2014, 12:33:04 PM »
Yeah but nobody takes anything Biden says seriously.

I agree 10000%. Another thing that the Left needs to take into account...Obama is not only failing on foreign policy as it relates to military/security interests. He's failing on free trade agreements, oil and gas exports and a host of other shit that feeds this. If we had a more roust trade infrastructure for our natural gas, Europe would have an alternative to Putin. It all feeds into each other and this guy has failed everywhere you look. He gives great BS speeches and then plays golf...that's great.
L

James

  • Guest
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2014, 02:54:13 PM »

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2014, 03:24:38 PM »
The Obama White House is learning the hard way that presidential power requires something more substantial than an eternal marketing campaign and an endless spin-cycle, because no matter what a utopian president thinks the world should be like, the reality is this: in human life, peace is a transient thing, and in geopolitics, it is more often than not an illusion that quickly reveals itself as one. If Europe has been “at peace” these last 60 years, it’s a profound aberration in the scheme of history. Obama (and his Secretary of State) seem to believe that humanity has — by virtue of nothing at all, except perhaps his say-so — transcended itself and entered into a we-are-stardust-we-are-golden happy place, where (in Europe, at least) nobody wants war, because everyone is loving peace.
That is a rather terrifying demonstration of naivete. Even a so-so student of human history and behavior (like me) knows that someone always wants war. Someone always wants more power. Someone is always looking for a way to avenge what they believe are past insults.

Via Instapundit
L

Mr.1derful

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4943
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2014, 05:24:52 PM »

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2014, 05:27:36 AM »
Libtards keep ignoring the following:

1994: Bill Clinton promised with signature to protect Ukraine if it gave up most of its Nuclear weapons and basically gutted its Military.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html



2005: Senator Obama pushed a bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine, even further gutting most of the ammunition stockpiles – crucial for keeping a standing army battle-ready – were destroyed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573557/Flashback-Senator-Obama-pushed-destruction-15-000-TONS-ammunition-400-000-small-arms-1-000-anti-aircraft-missiles-Ukraine.html


Libtard policies ALWAYS fail. Libtard PROMISES are never kept.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #45 on: March 06, 2014, 10:44:57 PM »
Stop trying to destabilize and isolate Russia and meddle with other nations.  Stop threatening sanctions.  Sanctions will backfire.  Countries are looking East economically, not West.  Want to threaten Russia?  Watch Russia and China collapse the dollar. 

QFT!!!
w

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Should the US send troops into Ukraine?
« Reply #46 on: March 06, 2014, 10:56:34 PM »
We promised to protect Ukraine’s borders, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, plain and simple, would be the same thing if the libs succeeded in everyone losing the right to own a gun, and then when someone enters your home to steal and hurt you, you then call the police and they say sorry, we are not coming to help you.

You make a promise you keep it. 

Seriously James Get Real!

Do you truly expect the USA to keep whatever promises it may have made to the Ukraine? Seriously?

The USA refuses to keep the promises it has made to it's own citizens.

I don't know about you, but I'd be demanding my Gov't keep its promises to ME and my fellow citizens before I start crying about any promises it may break to those outside my own country. I mean, if my country were to break a promise it made to me 6 yrs ago, what would it make me if I were to ignore that, ...ignore the difficulty & hardship that broken promise to me may have caused, ...and insist it keep a promise to others from 20 yrs ago? ...especially when keeping that promise to foreigners compounds my pain & hardship?

There's a reason the founding fathers demanded "No Foreign Entanglements!" Never play chess with a Russian  ;D
w