• 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

Yes, the planning and execution of the Iraq invasion was absolutely pathetic.

The invasion itself was a masterpiece. The problem was that there was no real plan (or no good one anyway) for what to do the day after.:peace
 
The invasion itself was a masterpiece. The problem was that there was no real plan (or no good one anyway) for what to do the day after.:peace

Well yes. The first month or two was fine. I was at Haditha Dam, things like that weren't the problem.
 
The invasion itself was a masterpiece. The problem was that there was no real plan (or no good one anyway) for what to do the day after.:peace
I think half the plan was expecting they wouldn't have to follow through with the attack. Have you ever heard of a "clean" war? Way too many variables to account for, and once it happens, that why you need good military leaders on the ground. Not political hacks.
 
What was the last American foreign policy action you agreed with?

Repealing the Platt amendment, The Tydings McDuffie Act, The Bell Commission, more recently, the temporary deal Obama just made with Iran and the deal struck with Russia to remove WMD from Syria.

Essentially, foreign policy that's aimed squarely at empowering, freeing and improving the lot of people's, seemingly at least without some hidden agenda that ends in denying those things. Foreign policy that has advanced peace, and at the very least postponed war, or policies that make citizens everywhere safer.

But we're talking about the Ukraine, and bad or as others here have pointed out, hypocritical foreign policy.
 
I think half the plan was expecting they wouldn't have to follow through with the attack. Have you ever heard of a "clean" war? Way too many variables to account for, and once it happens, that why you need good military leaders on the ground. Not political hacks.

Sounds like good reason to avoid unnecessary wars, too!
 
Our mistake is pretending that Pakistan is anything but our enemy. It's gotten to the point that they know that they can do anything short of directly attacking US troops without receiving an iota of consequences in return. As long as we continue our policy of kissing Islamabad's ass, the Taliban can rely on a steady supply of aid from Pakistan and it is virtually guaranteed that they'll be able to severely destabilize Afghanistan and thus colonize it for Pakistan.

Not insisting that Dr. Shakil Afridi be released, the man who pointed out the whereabouts of bin Laden, is one of the weakest points in the Obama Administration, and underlines strongly the point you are making. Obama takes the credit while the real hero suffers life in a Pakistani prison.
 

Yes... vile scum... when you send troops to war and then stab them in the back and both actions are done for political expediency... that lot is lower than scum. That lot is the Demokrats.
 
Yes... vile scum... when you send troops to war and then stab them in the back and both actions are done for political expediency... that lot is lower than scum. That lot is the Demokrats.

Okay, well you're pretty weird.
 
Not insisting that Dr. Shakil Afridi be released, the man who pointed out the whereabouts of bin Laden, is one of the weakest points in the Obama Administration, and underlines strongly the point you are making. Obama takes the credit while the real hero suffers life in a Pakistani prison.

It's not just an Obama thing - our appeasement of the thugs who run Pakistan has been going on since the Nixon administration. The fact that Afridi was thrown in jail on trumped up charges speaks to the fact that Pakistan sees al-Qaeda as an asset rather than an enemy.
 
The invasion itself was a masterpiece. The problem was that there was no real plan (or no good one anyway) for what to do the day after.:peace

Absolutely. When dealing with terrorists its best to just bomb the hell out of them, have boots on the ground, and a constant 'surge'. Repeat until the message is clear and any sign of totalitarianism has disappeared, as was the case in Germany and Japan. Once that is complete then it's time to introduce education and an introduction to the modern world.
 
Absolutely. When dealing with terrorists its best to just bomb the hell out of them, have boots on the ground, and a constant 'surge'. Repeat until the message is clear and any sign of totalitarianism has disappeared, as was the case in Germany and Japan. Once that is complete then it's time to introduce education and an introduction to the modern world.

How progressive of you. Brutal force followed education campaigns to rid them of their savage ways. White man's burden and all that jive is alive and well.
 
It's not just an Obama thing - our appeasement of the thugs who run Pakistan has been going on since the Nixon administration. The fact that Afridi was thrown in jail on trumped up charges speaks to the fact that Pakistan sees al-Qaeda as an asset rather than an enemy.

That might have been going on for decades but I know of no bigger betrayal then what happened to Dr. Afridi.
 
How progressive of you. Brutal force followed education campaigns to rid them of their savage ways. White man's burden and all that jive is alive and well.

What force other than 'brutal' would you use in a war against totalitarian regimes? You want to win bin Ladens heart and mind first? Or Hirohitos, Hitlers or Stalin's?

What is this "White man's burden" silliness?
 
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said there is "no question" that Russian President Vladimir Putin believes President Barack Obama is weak, and that the United States should not take military options off the table in its response to Russia's military intervention in Ukraine.
"I worry when we begin to address the crisis, the first thing we do is take options off the table,” Cheney said on CBS' "Face The Nation" Sunday. “There are military options that don’t involve putting groups on the ground in Crimea.”
Among them: military training "for the Ukrainians themselves," Cheney said.
Cheney then criticized what he called President Barack Obama's reflexive urge to say "no military," and the administration's "indecisiveness" in Syria — which has allowed Putin to run "roughshod" over the region.
"There's no question Putin believes [Obama] is weak," Cheney said. “We have created an image around the world, not just to the Russians, of weakness and indecisiveness. The Syrian situation is a classic. We got all ready to do something, a lot of the allies signed on, at the last minute Obama backed off.”
Last week on "Face The Nation," Secretary of State John Kerry called Putin's "invasion" of Crimea a "brazen act of aggression" and said there were "a broad array of options" available, but limited the talk to sanctions.
"The last thing anybody wants is a military option in this kind of a situation," Kerry said on "Meet The Press." "We want a peaceful resolution through the normal processes of international relations.":peace
 
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said there is "no question" that Russian President Vladimir Putin believes President Barack Obama is weak, and that the United States should not take military options off the table in its response to Russia's military intervention in Ukraine.
"I worry when we begin to address the crisis, the first thing we do is take options off the table,” Cheney said on CBS' "Face The Nation" Sunday. “There are military options that don’t involve putting groups on the ground in Crimea.”
Among them: military training "for the Ukrainians themselves," Cheney said.
Cheney then criticized what he called President Barack Obama's reflexive urge to say "no military," and the administration's "indecisiveness" in Syria — which has allowed Putin to run "roughshod" over the region.
"There's no question Putin believes [Obama] is weak," Cheney said. “We have created an image around the world, not just to the Russians, of weakness and indecisiveness. The Syrian situation is a classic. We got all ready to do something, a lot of the allies signed on, at the last minute Obama backed off.”
Last week on "Face The Nation," Secretary of State John Kerry called Putin's "invasion" of Crimea a "brazen act of aggression" and said there were "a broad array of options" available, but limited the talk to sanctions.
"The last thing anybody wants is a military option in this kind of a situation," Kerry said on "Meet The Press." "We want a peaceful resolution through the normal processes of international relations.":peace

Perhaps Kerry would prefer 'a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort, an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort'. That should make everyone sit up and take notice.
 
Oh boy. Quoting Cheney on foreign policy. :doh
 
What force other than 'brutal' would you use in a war against totalitarian regimes? You want to win bin Ladens heart and mind first? Or Hirohitos, Hitlers or Stalin's?

Whose hearts and minds are we winning exactly? The already Pro-US Ukranians? Yeah, that seems to have worked out well in Iraq. Hey, I'm all in favor of stopping people who threaten us. Not Europe. Let them deal with their problems. But just for reference, what's the end game of it all? We fight a war with Russia, then stay in Ukraine indefinitely?

What is this "White man's burden" silliness?

"The White Man's Burden": Kipling's Hymn to U.S. Imperialism

In February 1899, British novelist and poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem entitled “The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands.” In this poem, Kipling urged the U.S. to take up the “burden” of empire, as had Britain and other European nations. Published in the February, 1899 issue of McClure’s Magazine, the poem coincided with the beginning of the Philippine-American War and U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty that placed Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, and the Philippines under American control. Theodore Roosevelt, soon to become vice-president and then president, copied the poem and sent it to his friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, commenting that it was “rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view.” Not everyone was as favorably impressed as Roosevelt. The racialized notion of the “White Man’s burden” became a euphemism for imperialism, and many anti-imperialists couched their opposition in reaction to the phrase.

In short, fight a war with a country threatening other countries and then establish a new age imperialism.
 
IMO, it remains uncertain what kind of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy is going on with Russia. What is clear is that Russia has staked various rationale for its actions. Perhaps creative diplomacy can be used to "test" Russia's real intentions. In other words, it can be used to determine whether Russia's aims run beyond what it has cited.

Russia's interests in Crimea are two-fold:

1. Its naval base at Sevastopol
2. The wellbeing of Crimea's majority ethnic Russian population.

Russia has complained that the political revolution in Ukraine led to "fascists" gaining power.

A diplomatic proposal along the following lines would "test" those assertions:

1. Crimea would remain part of Ukraine but would be permitted to pursue a "special relationship" with Russia. This would allow Russia to work more closely with the region's majority ethnic Russian population.
2. The lease of the Sevastopol naval base would be made permanent. The reality is that Ukraine does not possess the power to extract it, so it will be going nowhere. The lease could be ended if Russia agrees to terminate it.
3. The transitional Ukrainian government would remove the Right Sector movement and similar ideological groups from office. That would address Russia's concerns about "fascists" having gained power.
4. The Ukrainian government would commit itself to granting the Russian language official recognition in the constitution (current law that was almost repealed). Such protection would assure Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority that they would have a viable place in Ukraine. This would also address Russia's argument that Ukraine's ethnic Russians need protection from Russia.

Such an outcome would preserve Ukraine's territorial integrity. It would also address Russia's needs and interests. Russia's decision as to whether or not to accept such terms would say much about its goals and ambitions.

The only real cost to the transitional Ukrainian government would be dissociation from the Right Sector and similar fringe groups. The permanence of the naval base lease would reflect what is already practical reality. A concession is what one has the ability to deny but chooses to yield. The fate of the naval base does not fit that definition.

I don't expect such terms to be offered, even as they would offer an interesting test of Russia's goals and ambitions. If not, there is a real risk that Ukraine will wind up having lost Crimea.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Kerry would prefer 'a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort, an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort'. That should make everyone sit up and take notice.

Unlike you guys, Kerry would prefer not to start WWIII. What a relief that Cheney is not in charge anymore. He's running on batteries now anyway, what would he care if the world ended.
 
Whose hearts and minds are we winning exactly? The already Pro-US Ukranians? Yeah, that seems to have worked out well in Iraq. Hey, I'm all in favor of stopping people who threaten us. Not Europe. Let them deal with their problems. But just for reference, what's the end game of it all? We fight a war with Russia, then stay in Ukraine indefinitely?

You ask a question made up out of nothing and then answer it. Play the solo sport on your own.
 
Unlike you guys, Kerry would prefer not to start WWIII. What a relief that Cheney is not in charge anymore. He's running on batteries now anyway, what would he care if the world ended.

Cheney was in charge like Joe Biden is in charge, but that may not matter to you.
 
Okay, well you're pretty weird.

Weird because Demokrats use votes to send troops to war and then turn their backs on them... both for political expediency, and I think it's below scum?

Obviously you seem to be OK with sending troops to war for political expediency, and then turning on them for political expediency.

Fine. We know where you stand.
 
That might have been going on for decades but I know of no bigger betrayal then what happened to Dr. Afridi.

Well, here's what else has happened:

1. Nixon and Kissinger aided Pakistan in its genocidal campaign against Bangladesh and its war against the democracy of India.
2. Pakistan was sending not just aid but soldiers to fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance right up until 9/11. They have in effect continued this policy, not just through the Taliban but also via Hekmatyar and the Haqqani network. We will never win in Afghanistan unless we do something about this covert support.
3. Pakistan launch tested a nuclear bomb in the early 1990s. We were hostile at first, but we put our rightful indignation aside when we "allied" in Afghanistan. As a result, A. Q. Khan was able to operate his proliferation racket with impunity.
4. Isn't it awfully coincidental that the world's most wanted terrorist was hiding in a Pakistani garrison city?

Pakistan was responsible for the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul; it continues to use our War on Terror funds to finance its own internal conflicts; it uses its leverage with terrorists in order to continually extort American taxpayer aid. Obviously the case of Dr. Afridi is tragic, but it pales in comparison to the larger implication of our unquestioning alliance with Pakistan. It by far deserves the title of 51st more than Israel does.


Back to Ukraine: my position on this has slowly been evolving, and I believe that if we cannot resolve South Ossetia and Crimea in favor of Georgia and Ukraine, respectively, then we should formally give them over to Russia. This will be a short-term Russian victory in its campaign to bully post-Soviet states, but settling these issues will facilitate the far more significant Western gain of pulling those countries into NATO. What does the Crimean peninsula matter to Russia when it realizes that it could incur the military wrath of the Western world if it attempts another invasion and occupation?
 
Well, here's what else has happened:

1. Nixon and Kissinger aided Pakistan in its genocidal campaign against Bangladesh and its war against the democracy of India.
2. Pakistan was sending not just aid but soldiers to fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance right up until 9/11. They have in effect continued this policy, not just through the Taliban but also via Hekmatyar and the Haqqani network. We will never win in Afghanistan unless we do something about this covert support.
3. Pakistan launch tested a nuclear bomb in the early 1990s. We were hostile at first, but we put our rightful indignation aside when we "allied" in Afghanistan. As a result, A. Q. Khan was able to operate his proliferation racket with impunity.
4. Isn't it awfully coincidental that the world's most wanted terrorist was hiding in a Pakistani garrison city?

Pakistan was responsible for the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul; it continues to use our War on Terror funds to finance its own internal conflicts; it uses its leverage with terrorists in order to continually extort American taxpayer aid. Obviously the case of Dr. Afridi is tragic, but it pales in comparison to the larger implication of our unquestioning alliance with Pakistan. It by far deserves the title of 51st more than Israel does.


Back to Ukraine: my position on this has slowly been evolving, and I believe that if we cannot resolve South Ossetia and Crimea in favor of Georgia and Ukraine, respectively, then we should formally give them over to Russia. This will be a short-term Russian victory in its campaign to bully post-Soviet states, but settling these issues will facilitate the far more significant Western gain of pulling those countries into NATO. What does the Crimean peninsula matter to Russia when it realizes that it could incur the military wrath of the Western world if it attempts another invasion and occupation?

You are, of course, correct. I suppose I feel more strongly about this because it was a very brave, single individual who was betrayed during the long search for OBL.
 
Back
Top Bottom