• 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

The only 'pro-war' person I see here is you, making the claim that it's okay for Putin to invade a neighboring country because you claim it is 'inflamed'.

I suppose you missed all the destruction during the protests. You've got no credibility criticising Putin for doing far less than you support the US doing on a very regular basis. **** dude, how many countries has the US invaded?
 
Who knew Monte was such an undercover warmonger!

Yeah, that's it. Though I would have preferred that the half of Ukrainians that threw a fit and started burning everything had used a better method. Securing a destabilised country on ones border is not acting pro-war. Making up a story about a country out of thin air in order to attack and occupy them for a decade, and then leave it in ruins is definitely pro-war. I can't believe you masquerade as an educated person.
 
Yeah, that's it. Though I would have preferred that the half of Ukrainians that threw a fit and started burning everything had used a better method. Securing a destabilised country on ones border is not acting pro-war. Making up a story about a country out of thin air in order to attack and occupy them for a decade, and then leave it in ruins is definitely pro-war. I can't believe you masquerade as an educated person.

So many excuses when it comes to violating international law and treaties! Why didn't you offer these excuses up for when the US does these types of things? Are you interested in international law and treaties at all? Or only when they promote your agenda?
 
I suppose you missed all the destruction during the protests. You've got no credibility criticising Putin for doing far less than you support the US doing on a very regular basis. **** dude, how many countries has the US invaded?

How many countries the US has invaded has nothing to do with the conversation. It is an immaterial and juvenile argument.The topic is Ukraine accuses Russia of Occupation calls for help from US/UK. Let's confine it to that.
 
So many excuses when it comes to violating international law and treaties! Why didn't you offer these excuses up for when the US does these types of things? Are you interested in international law and treaties at all? Or only when they promote your agenda?

My agenda is peace. While Putin didn't start this conflict, he's the best man to end it, A, and B, I disagree with you that responding to a country on his border who's citizens (some anyway) started burning ****, toppled the government, seized control of the military and declared independence, is a violation of treaty or law.
 
Yeah, that's it. Though I would have preferred that the half of Ukrainians that threw a fit and started burning everything had used a better method. Securing a destabilised country on ones border is not acting pro-war. Making up a story about a country out of thin air in order to attack and occupy them for a decade, and then leave it in ruins is definitely pro-war. I can't believe you masquerade as an educated person.

Supporting the invasion of a neighboring country is not pro war??
 
How many countries the US has invaded has nothing to do with the conversation. It is an immaterial and juvenile argument.The topic is Ukraine accuses Russia of Occupation calls for help from US/UK. Let's confine it to that.

Your right, the other is too embarrassing. Ok, so SOME Ukrainians have accused Russia, and there's nothing the US/UK could or should do. So far, Russia's action is legitimate.
 
Supporting the invasion of a neighboring country is not pro war??

It's not an invasion, stop lying. As though Russia started all this.
 
Your right, the other is too embarrassing. Ok, so SOME Ukrainians have accused Russia, and there's nothing the US/UK could or should do. So far, Russia's action is legitimate.

Some Ukrainians have accused Russia of what? How is invading another country legitimate? In fact I have heard of no head of State anywhere who supports this Russian invasion of an independent country.
 
My agenda is peace. While Putin didn't start this conflict, he's the best man to end it, A, and B, I disagree with you that responding to a country on his border who's citizens (some anyway) started burning ****, toppled the government, seized control of the military and declared independence, is a violation of treaty or law.

Of course you do. You'd never extend that benefit of the doubt to the US, though. It's interesting. You also get a lot of your news from RT, too, don't you? Very interesting.

Here's a tip: don't get up on a self righteous soapbox about war crimes and such if you're unwilling to apply that standard across the board. Just common sense, dude.
 
I see, so you are predicting Obama's inaction (whatever that means) is going to trigger WW111.

The world is black and white to you isn't it? I am saying that Obama's inaction is making matters worse. He's playing Russian roulette with ... Russia. That isn't to say there is a bullet in the chamber today.
 
Oh, I see. Because Obama "said" force is off the table, that means force is off the table, right? Anyway, force cannot be on the table with Russia, A, your not pushing Russia over like you did Iraq and Libya, the US would have huge skin in the game just to try and prevent a country who's citizens are split 50/50 from going Russian, and secondly, if Obama put force on the table, and then didn't use it, you'd bitch at him for that. Again, exactly what is it that you think Obama should be doing?

If Obama said that force is off the tale that means that our opponent will behave as if FORCE IS OFF THE TABLE.

I mean, FFS, man, if the President says he won't use force and then actually DOES use force anyway then he is an even bigger imbecile that I thought since his initial statement has contributed to the outbreak of war rather than avoid it.
 
If Obama said that force is off the tale that means that our opponent will behave as if FORCE IS OFF THE TABLE.

I mean, FFS, man, if the President says he won't use force and then actually DOES use force anyway then he is an even bigger imbecile that I thought since his initial statement has contributed to the outbreak of war rather than avoid it.

I don't think Russia can afford to have a war with Ukraine or maintain a military ocupation of Ukraine. It would be a another Chechnya.
 
If Obama said that force is off the tale that means that our opponent will behave as if FORCE IS OFF THE TABLE.

I mean, FFS, man, if the President says he won't use force and then actually DOES use force anyway then he is an even bigger imbecile that I thought since his initial statement has contributed to the outbreak of war rather than avoid it.

If you look at history, cool heads generally provide more favorable outcomes in conflicts like this. Only a lunatic would think the U.S. is going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Diplomacy is the only option here and pretending to take a possible military posture will do nothing but raise tensions.

We will try and wrestle Ukraine away from Russia using soft power and the will of the Ukranian people in the safest manner possible. The Soviet Union and communism collapsed without firing a single bullet, diplomacy and economics are the weapon of choice for these situations now.
 
Of course you do. You'd never extend that benefit of the doubt to the US, though. It's interesting. You also get a lot of your news from RT, too, don't you? Very interesting.

Here's a tip: don't get up on a self righteous soapbox about war crimes and such if you're unwilling to apply that standard across the board. Just common sense, dude.

If Russia commits war crimes they will be criticised as well. But here's the difference, Russia puts up little front of respecting IL.
 
The world is black and white to you isn't it? I am saying that Obama's inaction is making matters worse. He's playing Russian roulette with ... Russia. That isn't to say there is a bullet in the chamber today.

I'm still not clear on what you think Obama should do?
 
If Obama said that force is off the tale that means that our opponent will behave as if FORCE IS OFF THE TABLE.

I mean, FFS, man, if the President says he won't use force and then actually DOES use force anyway then he is an even bigger imbecile that I thought since his initial statement has contributed to the outbreak of war rather than avoid it.

It's getting clearer. I think you're saying that the entire Ukrainian situation is Obama's fault.
 
If you look at history, cool heads generally provide more favorable outcomes in conflicts like this. Only a lunatic would think the U.S. is going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Diplomacy is the only option here and pretending to take a possible military posture will do nothing but raise tensions.

We will try and wrestle Ukraine away from Russia using soft power and the will of the Ukranian people in the safest manner possible. The Soviet Union and communism collapsed without firing a single bullet, diplomacy and economics are the weapon of choice for these situations now.

This is demonstrably false. I can only conclude that you haven't looked at much history.
 
I'm still not clear on what you think Obama should do?

Stage military readiness exercises of forces in the EU bases, issue orders to ready a deployment of a carrier group to the area. Any number of other levels of military posturing to let Putin know that the US is quite capable of defending Ukraine as per our treaty.

Once this is established then you can have a talk with Russia.

As it is Putin just laughs at any US attempt at diplomacy because he knows, in the end, that the US will do nothing to stand in the way.

Following this you can expect a few months later Putin will start signalling the need for Russian troops in some other state that was previously a part of the Soviet Union, claiming the need to protect ethnic Russians who invariably inhabit the border regions of ALL previously Soviet States.

This will also get China seriously thinking about action in Taiwan and elsewhere after Putin has shown the US will not protect its Allies. Hell, China even more-so than Russia will feel emboldened by this because China knows that the US would feel serious pain from a embargoing China.
 
Stage military readiness exercises of forces in the EU bases, issue orders to ready a deployment of a carrier group to the area. Any number of other levels of military posturing to let Putin know that the US is quite capable of defending Ukraine as per our treaty.

Once this is established then you can have a talk with Russia.

As it is Putin just laughs at any US attempt at diplomacy because he knows, in the end, that the US will do nothing to stand in the way.

Following this you can expect a few months later Putin will start signalling the need for Russian troops in some other state that was previously a part of the Soviet Union, claiming the need to protect ethnic Russians who invariably inhabit the border regions of ALL previously Soviet States.

This will also get China seriously thinking about action in Taiwan and elsewhere after Putin has shown the US will not protect its Allies. Hell, China even more-so than Russia will feel emboldened by this because China knows that the US would feel serious pain from a embargoing China.

I don't think our aircraft carriers or ships have access to bases in the Black Sea.
 
Stage military readiness exercises of forces in the EU bases, issue orders to ready a deployment of a carrier group to the area. Any number of other levels of military posturing to let Putin know that the US is quite capable of defending Ukraine as per our treaty.

Once this is established then you can have a talk with Russia.

As it is Putin just laughs at any US attempt at diplomacy because he knows, in the end, that the US will do nothing to stand in the way.

Following this you can expect a few months later Putin will start signalling the need for Russian troops in some other state that was previously a part of the Soviet Union, claiming the need to protect ethnic Russians who invariably inhabit the border regions of ALL previously Soviet States.

This will also get China seriously thinking about action in Taiwan and elsewhere after Putin has shown the US will not protect its Allies. Hell, China even more-so than Russia will feel emboldened by this because China knows that the US would feel serious pain from a embargoing China.

You want to start WWIII for what reason? Why on earth would that be a good idea? What positive outcome could be SO worth it to do such a thing? You want millions of people to die to show Putin we're not ******s?

This is so incredibly unnecessary. Putin is going to keep Crimea, he wants to scare Ukraine and try and get another pro Russian puppet in there to replace the one that was just ousted, that's all he wants. Yes this sucks for Ukraine but I'm pretty sure its preferable to decimation.
 
Back
Top Bottom