• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine accuses Russia of Occupation calls for help from US/UK

Why would Putin have given in to Obama and ordered ASSad to give up his chemical weapons?

He wouldn't have. It wasn't in his interest to do so, and he knew full well that U.S. foreign policy was too weak to change that equation.
 
He wouldn't have. It wasn't in his interest to do so, and he knew full well that U.S. foreign policy was too weak to change that equation.

What are you talking about?

It was in Assads interest to do what he did because the only other option was annihilation.

Russia came up with it because they didn't want to lose one of their only middle east allies because they know the US would do to him what they did to Gaddafi.

So this way Assad held on to power, Russia didn't lose it's middle east ally and Assad lost chemical weapons but would still get other Russian military aid.
 
And where does Russia get its cash whilst going into a costly war with Ukraine?

Russia will print the money. It has it's own currency. But this will short and quick. It's pretty easy to take over a country, harder part is holding it.
 
Then you're saying that ASSad gave up his WMD on his own?
Are you sure you want to stay with that?
I'll stay with 'No Drama Obama' doctrine .
He wouldn't have. It wasn't in his interest to do so, and he knew full well that U.S. foreign policy was too weak to change that equation.
 
Last edited:
This thread is so funny and devoid of facts and reality.

First of all there are already were tons of Russian troops in the Crimea.. it is called the Russian Black Sea Fleet and this is what it is all about. The Ukraine opposition has for almost a decade wanted its hands on this fleet and the port of Sevastopol. That is why the Russians are acting the way they are and putting troops into the Crimea to prevent that the new Ukrainian government trying to seize the base and fleet. Putin and Russia will do anything to defend this critical piece of their military... it is their only winter fleet base they have.

Secondly the Crimea was given to Ukraine during the Soviet period. It was never really part of historical Ukraine. The huge majority of people are Russians and want to be link to Russia. If you had a vote in the area even before the crisis, then they would vote by a massive margin to return to Russia.

Thirdly calling Obama weak is kinda funny when Bush allowed Putin to invade and occupy a country similar to this... was Bush weak too?

And finally what exactly can anyone do? Like it or not logistically any attempt to help the Ukrainians is bound to fail. Plus why should we care? The opposition aint exactly good either, and half the country hates the opposition. This is a mess that no one wants to get involved in, including the US with a right wing fanatic in the White House... no sane man would want that.

No the Ukrainian opposition needs to make a deal with Russia instead of acting like spoilt brats. That they had to be told by the Poles that they should sign the present deal or expect to die.. shows how little sense of reality they have. They have no military backing internally and half the country wants to cede... so come on.. wake the hell up. To save face they need to hold a referendum in Crimea and areas to the east and let the people vote for what country they want to be part off. It is the only way out.
 
Then you're saying that ASSad gave up his WMD on his own?
Are you sure you want to stay with that?
I'll stay with No Drama Obama instead of cowboy diplomacy from VP draft-dodger Cheney .

Why add the last sentence? I agreed with the first two.
 
This thread is so funny and devoid of facts and reality.

First of all there are already were tons of Russian troops in the Crimea.. it is called the Russian Black Sea Fleet and this is what it is all about. The Ukraine opposition has for almost a decade wanted its hands on this fleet and the port of Sevastopol. That is why the Russians are acting the way they are and putting troops into the Crimea to prevent that the new Ukrainian government trying to seize the base and fleet. Putin and Russia will do anything to defend this critical piece of their military... it is their only winter fleet base they have.

Secondly the Crimea was given to Ukraine during the Soviet period. It was never really part of historical Ukraine. The huge majority of people are Russians and want to be link to Russia. If you had a vote in the area even before the crisis, then they would vote by a massive margin to return to Russia.

Thirdly calling Obama weak is kinda funny when Bush allowed Putin to invade and occupy a country similar to this... was Bush weak too?

And finally what exactly can anyone do? Like it or not logistically any attempt to help the Ukrainians is bound to fail. Plus why should we care? The opposition aint exactly good either, and half the country hates the opposition. This is a mess that no one wants to get involved in, including the US with a right wing fanatic in the White House... no sane man would want that.

No the Ukrainian opposition needs to make a deal with Russia instead of acting like spoilt brats. That they had to be told by the Poles that they should sign the present deal or expect to die.. shows how little sense of reality they have. They have no military backing internally and half the country wants to cede... so come on.. wake the hell up. To save face they need to hold a referendum in Crimea and areas to the east and let the people vote for what country they want to be part off. It is the only way out.

It's a civil war in the making. If we thought the ME was bad, this is potentially way worse.

And people keep saying, "only if the Ukraine had nukes". What, they're going to irradiate themselves with Russia being right next door?
 
Because of the intense slamming of Obama that is completely out-of-line.
A little reference to the last decade, which has caused this decade, is needed with such partisanship.
What's wrong with supporting the 'No Drama Obama' doctrine?

BHO gets attacked from every conceivable fraction of the GOP in every foreign event,
giving Russia a sense that BHO is on his own in the USA, which he is .
Why add the last sentence? I agreed with the first two.
 
Because of the intense slamming of Obama that is completely out-of-line.
A little reference to the last decade, which has caused this decade, is needed with such partisanship.
What's wrong with supporting the 'No Drama Obama' doctrine?

BHO gets attacked from every conceivable fraction of the GOP in every foreign event,
giving Russia a sense that BHO is on his own in the USA, which he is .


That's no reason to ruin perfectly good points with partisan rhetoric.
 
It's a civil war in the making. If we thought the ME was bad, this is potentially way worse.

And people keep saying, "only if the Ukraine had nukes". What, they're going to irradiate themselves with Russia being right next door?

I don't see a lot of difference between the Middle East and the Balkan States.
Seems to be the cradle of unrest in the World, with overlapping cultures .
 
I predict that the USA will not go to war with Russia over the Ukraine.

Why the **** would we want to? That's what I can't figure out about the right-wingers here. What do they want to happen?
 
Incidents like this is exactly the reason why Iran wants and needs nukes, I bet the Ukrainians are kicking themselves now for giving up their nukes.




Right.

Toe to toe nuclear combat is lots of fun, eh?
 
Because of your longevity here and our previous discussions, I will rethink my final blast, and omit Cheney.

As I say, each new event in foreign policy begins with the neocons wanting war, as with McCain,
and the isolationist/libertarians wanting us to stay out; and the GOP partisans slamming Obama .
That's no reason to ruin perfectly good points with partisan rhetoric.
 
As I say, each new event in foreign policy begins with the neocons wanting war, as with McCain,
and the isolationist/libertarians wanting us to stay out; and the GOP partisans slamming Obama .

I'm not sure what neocon means these days. It once meant an interventionist libertarian, but it seems to mean an interventionist republican lately.
 
I don't see a lot of difference between the Middle East and the Balkan States.
Seems to be the cradle of unrest in the World, with overlapping cultures .

Russia was having too many problems, at that time, to get anymore involved in the Balkan wars.
All these proxy conflicts with them thru other nations are one thing, but actually controlling a former border territory, that they rely on for revenue and security, ain't happening, anymore than Cuba loaded with Russian nukes.
 
I fixed my post on Cheney.
I much prefer the 'No Drama Obama' doctrine though.

This seems to be a real problem for the EU bringing in Ukraine.

As you say, it's hard to keep up with the malleable wings of the GOP, and I'll add the DEMs as well.
DEMs are by no means cohesive on several important topics right now, such as NSA/drones, Keystone, trade pact, guns, farm bill and the rest.
I'm not sure what neocon means these days. It once meant an interventionist libertarian, but it seems to mean an interventionist republican lately.
 
I'm not sure what neocon means these days. It once meant an interventionist libertarian, but it seems to mean an interventionist republican lately.
Neocon HAS no mean. Its meant to be a slam on republican warhawks. It is ignored when those clamoring for war are people like say Clinton, all the elected dems that voted for action against Saddam and in Afghanistan, and the long line of liberals supporting Obama's war drums in Syria (right before Putin turned him out and made him his bitch).
 
and the long line of liberals supporting Obama's war drums in Syria (right before Putin turned him out and made him his bitch).

This is such a load of garbage.

Almost nobody supported unilateral action against Syria because the evidence was so flimsy.

Very few liberals on here supported any action based on the alleged gas attack.
 
Neocon HAS no mean. Its meant to be a slam on republican warhawks.
Apache calls neo-cons former liberals who switched to the GOP side.
It is ignored when those clamoring for war are people like say Clinton, all the elected dems that voted for action against Saddam and in Afghanistan
With faulty intelligence from the last administration.
and the long line of liberals supporting Obama's war drums in Syria (right before Putin turned him out and made him his bitch).

One of those liberals supporting Obama's war drums in Syria you speak of is
GOP Rep. Tom Cotton from Arkansas, currently leading Sen. Pryor .
 
It's a civil war in the making.

Most countries have aspects that is a "civil war in the making".. even the US and UK.

If we thought the ME was bad, this is potentially way worse.

Not really, there is no cross religious aspect in this and the winner is a given.. Russia.

It is easy to predict. Any country near Ukraine wont get involved because they dont want to piss off the Russians, and the US and western allies can shout at the moon as much as they want, but they have a massive logistics problem if they want aid any Ukrainian movement. The Russians control the Black Sea and the countries around the Ukraine wont allow transit.. so forget it.

Plus why do we care? Yes the Ukraine has the potential of being the breadbasket of the planet but other than that.. why do we care? Russia is going to do what they want, they have the money and willpower and unless you want a global war over this.. then there is not much we can do.

And lets not forget in most cases we have the choice between a Russian mafia puppet that is utterly corrupt or an Ukrainian dictator that might be more friendly towards the west, but will be just as corrupt. Remember the Orange revolution? Well they won, and the people who took over were later thrown in jail for... massive corruption... and now we have the same scenario.

We best keep out of this mess if you ask me.
 
Obama is weak. The world knows this. Putin has been kicking his ass all over the school yard and taking his lunch money. This jerk is killing us. This would not have happened if Bush was in office. Oh, I can't wait for some dumb liberal to post about how strong Obama is and that Putin will back down. C'mon libs, tell us how Obama will save the day! He sucks.

Bush was in office when the same thing happened in Georgia, with possibly even less justification on Russia's part, and Bush essentially could do nothing. So no, Bush would not save the day here.

Of course Obama is weak in this episode, any US President would be! There are very few ways to respond against Russia without inviting direct military conflict, which if I point you to 1945-1990 should remind you why that's a bad idea.

The worst thing Obama could do would be to listen to right-wing accusations of weakness and make a futile, chest-beating response out of machismo, though I doubt that would happen because he has done well to not care what the right thinks of him for over 5 years now.

Obama will lead from his behind once again. In fact, his speech was a leading from his behind moment.

Funny... Sarah Palin called this years ago. Weakness invites aggression.

Sarah Palin did not call this. She was responding directly to the Georgian crisis just after it happened, and it might have been the first time in her career she ever even thought about Russian foreign policy.
 
Russia will print the money. It has it's own currency. But this will short and quick. It's pretty easy to take over a country, harder part is holding it.

And the EU would use its gas reserves and freeze the oligarchs assets. It certainly would not be easy to take over Ukraine. And there are a few regions in Russia that would take the opportunity to cause trouble.
 
Back
Top Bottom