• 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!

Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

Most of which did not pose a direct threat to Russia's interests the way Ukraine does, and did not directly involve many if any Soviet troops.




Which revision of history tells you that Chamberlain was capable of keeping Hitler from taking the Sudetenland?

Hitler was desperate for international approval for both internal political purposes to cement his ruling power as well as for international relations for international trade reasons to allow him to continue to build his military power.

Without Chamberlain and others giving that, he may not have succeeded. We'll never know what would have happened had Chamberlain not given Hitler his approval.

At the time of the Sudetenland and Austrian "annexation" by Germany, the German military was not ready to take on the British, French or for that matter, the world. Once Chamberlain capitulated, Russia chose to do the same, and made the deal with Hitler to conquer and divide Poland in late September, 1939. With no force other than France standing in the way of Germany's expansionism, Germany was free to continue their expansion of their military power, mostly through slave labor and conquered resources. The same path is being followed now by Russia with the tacit approval of the world.

In the current situation, Russia is rebuilding its power base since they have lost their place as one of two world super-powers.

The actions in Ukraine, coupled with the Russian actions in Syria and Iran as well as past actions in Georgia, the Balkans, Moldova, and the Middle East, show that Russia is bent on expansionism, reconquering its former satellite states and either conquering or subjecting other countries into its realm of control.
 
I can respond to the rest of what you said but I think we're just going to talk past each other.

Just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with this point. But it's going to be hard for the provisional government to have a chance while surrounded by so much Russian intervention.

Bad tactics. If you want to conquer another country, it is best to do it when it is weak.
 
Look at my post (#28) in this thread...

I concur.

I was late coming into this thread and only read the first ten post before I posted.

Obligating treaties has turned small skirmishes into some of the stupidest wars to ever being fought. WW l is an example.

Obama has thrown so many American allies under the bus, he no longer has any credibility in the political world.

I believe Putin is well aware of the condition of our military is in today. He aint worried. I'm worried.

But I bet the U.S. Army can teach the Russian army a thing or two about political correctness and diversity.
 
Putin has received permission from the Russian Parliament to mobilize the country's military in the Ukraine. Parliament has also requested that the Russian Ambassador be recalled from the United States in light of President Obama's remarks yesterday.

I guess we showed him. The President's timing on this one was all wrong.

Putin gets permission to use military in Ukraine; parliament wants to pull ambassador in DC | Fox News

Why are we getting involved in this?

I find it disconcerting how this man of ours keeps drawing lines red or in the sand without seemingly any idea of what to do, when the thug calls him. Why would he shoot of his mouth and draw the fire? This is a self made European problem or at least based on their handling. Of course the US can do something and prevent the cessation. But if we don't want to, leave it to the EU and UN and help, where needed.
 
I posted this from a friend on another thread.

1) Immediately have the US and the EU confer with Ukraine and tell them to NOT attack the Russian troops in the Crimea. Have them immediately mobilize their forces to their borders and take up positions and prepare and make any further Russian aggression have to come through their prepared positions. Right now the Crimea is lost, and attacking them there will only invite a much larger invasion and the potential loss of all of the Ukraine.

2) The US should immediately start flying C-17s into Kiev (the Ukraine Capitol) loaded with advisors, provisions, trainers, and a a security force for those people. We cannot get enough people there to stop Putin at this point, but we can show him that the price for taking the Ukraine has now gone up and would be too steep for him.

3) Have the NATO and Euopean countries (Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain) do the same thing (Number 2) at other critical points throughout the Ukraine.

4) Immediately move to make the rest of the Ukraine a part of NATO.

5) Hasten the Ukraine's entry into the EU.

Not sure if any of this could or will be done.

NATO?!

Albania, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia - these countries are NATO members just for "search and rescue operations"
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Rep., Poland, Hungary, Romania - I doubt they will go straight against Russia.
Belgium, Netherlands, Norway - they need sex and weed, they're not for war.
Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy - they do not have moneys even to fuel their tanks for a long term war.
Turkey - they will get involved, no matter on which side, they miss/love the war.
Germany - they gave a **** about Syria, they won't care much more for Ukraine. + they have strained relations with US regarding the spying issue.
UK - they should do the mission impossible. Which suddenly would be British parliament as Syria case showed it up.
France - They will scream like dogs for war, but if US is not there, they become kitten.
USA/Canada - I doubt they will get involved since Ukraine it's a EU problem. As long as it stay an EU issue.

____________________________________________________________________________________

No one from these countries will care a lot for the Crimea. It's just a tiny spot on map.
None of them is prepared for war. Fighting Russians in Ukraine arena is mission impossible.

The only way they could put pressure to Russia, would be if they would have the guarantee of no-action from China & Iran, which indeed they do not have.
 
This could spiral out of control fast.


It wont. Obama didn't act in Syria, and he laid down for the Iranians over their nuke program, so you think he is going to do a damn thing against Russia? Not in a million years.

If Russia pulls their ambassador to the US that is a move by Putin to further embarrass the Obama administration in front of the entire world and especially in front of our NATO allies. It is a move to underline Obama's weakness and ineffectiveness as a leader. Just this week the Obama administration was calling for more military cuts. Putin would be foolish not to be taking these steps now with such a paper tiger as Obama in the white house. Putin is just looking after Russia's best interests in the region.

This is a perfect example of how a demonstration of weakness and lack of resolve on the part of the United States only makes the world less stable. This would have never happened when Reagan and Thatcher were leaders for the western powers. From the moment Obama took office and went on his worldwide apology tour, people like Putin were taking notes, and waiting for their moment. That moment is here.
 
It wont. Obama didn't act in Syria, and he laid down for the Iranians over their nuke program, so you think he is going to do a damn thing against Russia? Not in a million years.

If Russia pulls their ambassador to the US that is a move by Putin to further embarrass the Obama administration in front of the entire world and especially in front of our NATO allies. It is a move to underline Obama's weakness and ineffectiveness as a leader. Just this week the Obama administration was calling for more military cuts. Putin would be foolish not to be taking these steps now with such a paper tiger as Obama in the white house. Putin is just looking after Russia's best interests in the region.

This is a perfect example of how a demonstration of weakness and lack of resolve on the part of the United States only makes the world less stable. This would have never happened when Reagan and Thatcher were leaders for the western powers. From the moment Obama took office and went on his worldwide apology tour, people like Putin were taking notes, and waiting for their moment. That moment is here.

what do you think he should have done to a iran? point a gun at the ayatollah?
 
what do you think he should have done to a iran? point a gun at the ayatollah?

I don't think it is only about Iran.
Obama's administration acted many times like amateurs.
On each scandal that was given up in public, especially the spying issues, in every response they accepted their guiltiness and tried to cover it up with some amateur lies. No one believed what their justifications, especially Germans.
Also, those red lines in sand were such a joke.
Bush was bad in many parts but in foreign relations Putin would mess up with him or his red lines.
With Obama is so another picture.
 
I don't think it is only about Iran.
Obama's administration acted many times like amateurs.
On each scandal that was given up in public, especially the spying issues, in every response they accepted their guiltiness and tried to cover it up with some amateur lies. No one believed what their justifications, especially Germans.
Also, those red lines in sand were such a joke.
Bush was bad in many parts but in foreign relations Putin would mess up with him or his red lines.
With Obama is so another picture.

i asked the question the wrong way.

What move would have been considered strong, define what you mean by showing strong leadership?
 
i asked the question the wrong way.

What move would have been considered strong, define what you mean by showing strong leadership?

Just not doing what I wrote above would be enough I think. Especially those fake red lines.
 
It already is! Shocking events over the last few days.

This got out of control last year when Obama announced to the world, "I'm a great big ***** and won't put my money where my mouth is".

Remember when Obama told Medvedev that he would have more flexibility when he got elected for a second term?

Putin knows Obama isn't going to do a damn thing.
 
This got out of control last year when Obama announced to the world, "I'm a great big ***** and won't put my money where my mouth is".

Remember when Obama told Medvedev that he would have more flexibility when he got elected for a second term?

Putin knows Obama isn't going to do a damn thing.

then please put your money where your mouth is and explain to us what he should have done.
 
what do you think he should have done to a iran? point a gun at the ayatollah?

Yes I would.


There are a lot of things Obama could have done in Iran. Besides making more of an effort to destabilize Iran and bring about regime change in Iran, for one Obama and Kerry could stop treating Israel like they are the bad guys in the region.

Iran cannot have a nuke, period. If Iran gets a nuke the Israelis may need to use one of their 200 own nukes to defend themselves, and how will that be in the interest of the United States? If Iran gets a nuke they can threaten to block the Suez canal, and how will that be the interest of anyone?
 
not good enough. Tell me exactly what he should have done, In detail.

Tell me what options he should have used

He shouldn't have let the bad guys of the world know he's a *****. But, he's convinced the despots of the world that he's weak and this is the by-product.
 
then please put your money where your mouth is and explain to us what he should have done.

He shouldn't have let his mouth overload his ass. He shouldn't have believed so much of his own press. When Putin called his bluff in Syria, he should have manned up, vice running for cover.
 
Yes I would.


There are a lot of things Obama could have done in Iran. Besides making more of an effort to destabilize Iran and bring about regime change in Iran, for one Obama and Kerry could stop treating Israel like they are the bad guys in the region.

Iran cannot have a nuke, period. If Iran gets a nuke the Israelis may need to use one of their 200 own nukes to defend themselves, and how will that be in the interest of the United States? If Iran gets a nuke they can threaten to block the Suez canal, and how will that be the interest of anyone?

you think we should have destabilized iran? Even though the entire Middle east is already destabilized because of Iraq an syria, you want to add more chaos to the region.
 
he shouldn't have let his mouth overload his ass. He shouldn't have believed so much of his own press. When putin called his bluff in syria, he should have manned up, vice running for cover.

what actions should he have done to show he was a strong leader!?

How do you define showing strong leadership?!
 
not good enough. Tell me exactly what he should have done, In detail.

Tell me what options he should have used

I think he should have reminded the world that Russia signed a treaty in support of non-interference by anyone in Ukraine. And that the United States, Great Britain and many in the rest of the world are disappointed to see this so-obvious violation of that treaty by one of the very countries who signed it. He could have said that the United States and other signers will be weighing their options and hope to keep in constant and close contact with Russia as this moves forward toward the goal of understanding why they have chosen to take military action and what ramifications that action will have in the rest of the world.
 
what actions should he have done to show he was a strong leader!?

How do you define showing strong leadership?!

He ran and hid behind Congress when he looked like a punk during the Syria incident.

Exposing himself as being a weakling and a coward was NOT the right approach.
 
I think he should have reminded the world that Russia signed a treaty in support of non-interference by anyone in Ukraine. And that the United States, Great Britain and many in the rest of the world are disappointed to see this so-obvious violation of that treaty by one of the very countries who signed it. He could have said that the United States and other signers will be weighing their options and hope to keep in constant and close contact with Russia as this moves forward toward the goal of understanding why they have chosen to take military action and what ramifications that action will have in the rest of the world.

the situation in the ukraine and crimea is fluid, so it would be stupid to rush to any conclusions.
 
He ran and hid behind Congress when he looked like a punk during the Syria incident.

Exposing himself as being a weakling and a coward was NOT the right approach.

You keep saying that he showed weakness, but you are not saying what action was thing that showed weakness.
 
the situation in the ukraine and crimea is fluid, so it would be stupid to rush to any conclusions.

Oh yeah! It's fluid, alright. The movements of the Red Army are very fluid right now...LOL!!
 
Oh yeah! It's fluid, alright. The movements of the Red Army are very fluid right now...LOL!!

do we know where the russian troops are heading? the border of crimea and ukraine? their millitary bases? do we know what purpose the troops are there for.
 
Back
Top Bottom