• 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!

US prepares $1B aid package for troubled Ukraine.....

apdst said:
Perhaps, if there's anyone in the world to stand up to him. I don't know of anyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "stand up to him." Do you mean send troops after him?
 
Lerxst said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "stand up to him." Do you mean send troops after him?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Reagan stood up to the Soviets and never sent troops after them.
 
Montecresto said:
He's not trying to take down NATO or the US. And it would appear he doesn't need to start shooting in the Ukraine. All the talk about similarities to WW2 and Hitler, imperialism and invasion for conquest is up over the top. I don't think you're saying that but some are.
Click to expand...

I agree. And my point about NATO is that people are claiming if we don't stop him here he will take the Ukraine, then he will be in a position to come after NATO countries. And then they start with with the Nazi Germany comparisons. It's not even remotely the same type of situation and I don't believe Putin is even entertaining a play against NATO. He simply wants Ukraine to stay in the Russian sphere. It's all hyped up fear mongering and rhetoric at this point.
 
apdst said:
Not necessarily. Reagan stood up to the Soviets and never sent troops after them.
Click to expand...

That was a completely different time, a completely different geopolitical reality. Russia is not the Soviet Union of the Cold War. Their play in the Crimea isn't the same as say the Cuban Missile Crisis or Afghanistan. Reagan stood up to the Soviet with words and defense spending. They actually believed Reagan was crazy enough to end the world. I don't want that in a President. Not in this day and age. The world already thinks we are the greatest threat global peace that exists.

Sorry, but I don't believe we should be the World Police. I don't believe this is a problem for the U.S. This isn't Nazi Germany in the 30's, this isn't Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Is it provocative and disturbing? Yes. Nobody likes it. Everybody is pissed at Putin. But this isn't worth risking a full scale war in Europe over. Hell the Crimean citizenship doesn't want to be part of the Ukraine anyway. They were already trying to secede and position themselves closer to Russia before this happened. It's not like they are needing "liberated."

The last time the U.S. tried to export "freedom and democracy" we leveled two nations into ruin and killed tens of thousands of people in the process.
 
This is a fruitless move. The only leverage the west would have would be to economically isolate Russia, and that is not going to happen. The west is not even united on punishing Iran over their nuke program, why would Putin assume that Russia will be isolated over this?
 
Lerxst said:
That was a completely different time, a completely different geopolitical reality. Russia is not the Soviet Union of the Cold War. Their play in the Crimea isn't the same as say the Cuban Missile Crisis or Afghanistan. Reagan stood up to the Soviet with words and defense spending. They actually believed Reagan was crazy enough to end the world. I don't want that in a President. Not in this day and age. The world already thinks we are the greatest threat global peace that exists.

Sorry, but I don't believe we should be the World Police. I don't believe this is a problem for the U.S. This isn't Nazi Germany in the 30's, this isn't Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Is it provocative and disturbing? Yes. Nobody likes it. Everybody is pissed at Putin. But this isn't worth risking a full scale war in Europe over. Hell the Crimean citizenship doesn't want to be part of the Ukraine anyway. They were already trying to secede and position themselves closer to Russia before this happened. It's not like they are needing "liberated."

The last time the U.S. tried to export "freedom and democracy" we leveled two nations into ruin and killed tens of thousands of people in the process.
Click to expand...

Great comments!
 
Lerxst said:
That was a completely different time, a completely different geopolitical reality. Russia is not the Soviet Union of the Cold War. Their play in the Crimea isn't the same as say the Cuban Missile Crisis or Afghanistan. Reagan stood up to the Soviet with words and defense spending. They actually believed Reagan was crazy enough to end the world. I don't want that in a President. Not in this day and age. The world already thinks we are the greatest threat global peace that exists.

Sorry, but I don't believe we should be the World Police. I don't believe this is a problem for the U.S. This isn't Nazi Germany in the 30's, this isn't Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Is it provocative and disturbing? Yes. Nobody likes it. Everybody is pissed at Putin. But this isn't worth risking a full scale war in Europe over. Hell the Crimean citizenship doesn't want to be part of the Ukraine anyway. They were already trying to secede and position themselves closer to Russia before this happened. It's not like they are needing "liberated."

The last time the U.S. tried to export "freedom and democracy" we leveled two nations into ruin and killed tens of thousands of people in the process.
Click to expand...

And, they know Obama doesn't have the balls to get into a fire-fight, much less destroy the world. Because of that, they're going to push him around.

You may not want toughness in a president, but the bad guys do and they're going to take advantage if it; potentially costing American lives.
 
apdst said:
And, they know Obama doesn't have the balls to get into a fire-fight, much less destroy the world. Because of that, they're going to push him around.

You may not want toughness in a president, but the bad guys do and they're going to take advantage if it; potentially costing American lives.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Obama has had no issue whatsoever using the U.S. military. You have no stick with which to accurately measure Obama's resolve. Just because he's not running around starting wars all over the globe doesn't mean he's a *****. It means he understands the price of war goes beyond a dollar sign. In case you didn't know the rest of the world damn near despises the U.S. because of our addiction to killing people from other countries.

I don't care who the President is, the U.S. is not in any position to go to war with Russia over the Crimea. We couldn't afford it and the ROI would be absolutely ZERO. Putin isn't coming after the West. He isn't going after Berlin, Paris, Rome, or London. He's damn sure not going after Washington. He's using his military to influence a regional issue in his own backyard. And many of the people who actually live there support the Russian forces being there. One has to suspend disbelief in order to work this into some kind of threat to all of Europe or the U.S.

The hawkish American response is one of penis envy it seems. It's almost as if the Pentagon's ego were hurt or something. "Putin sent some troops into the Crimea? Holy **** if we don't go blow them up people might think we aren't the toughest anymore! We can't have that!"
 
Let Ukraine collapse and Russia occupy/conquer it too. The issue of whether we would defend any Eastern European country or honor any agreements to do so has been answered: "No."

A billion dollars to Ukraine is just spending a billion to help out Russia. Let Ukraine go into chaos. All the trouble of that will land on Russia. Racing to give Ukraine a billion dollars is truly stupid. Why not just give it to Putin?
 
Lerxst said:
Wrong. Obama has had no issue whatsoever using the U.S. military. You have no stick with which to accurately measure Obama's resolve. Just because he's not running around starting wars all over the globe doesn't mean he's a *****. It means he understands the price of war goes beyond a dollar sign. In case you didn't know the rest of the world damn near despises the U.S. because of our addiction to killing people from other countries.

I don't care who the President is, the U.S. is not in any position to go to war with Russia over the Crimea. We couldn't afford it and the ROI would be absolutely ZERO. Putin isn't coming after the West. He isn't going after Berlin, Paris, Rome, or London. He's damn sure not going after Washington. He's using his military to influence a regional issue in his own backyard. And many of the people who actually live there support the Russian forces being there. One has to suspend disbelief in order to work this into some kind of threat to all of Europe or the U.S.

The hawkish American response is one of penis envy it seems. It's almost as if the Pentagon's ego were hurt or something. "Putin sent some troops into the Crimea? Holy **** if we don't go blow them up people might think we aren't the toughest anymore! We can't have that!"
Click to expand...

Two words: red line

He screwed the pooch in Syria. He has weakened our military in the eyes of the Russians.

Obama will never unleash our military. He's a coward.
 
apdst said:
Two words: red line

He screwed the pooch in Syria. He has weakened our military in the eyes of the Russians.

Obama will never unleash our military. He's a coward.
Click to expand...

He did NOT screw anything in Syria. He was prevented by law, ethics and common sense from attacking Syria. It's amazing you don't understand that. He had no problem "unleashing" our military in Libya, and he has no right unleashing it in the Ukraine.
 
iguanaman said:
You seem to be sad that a corrupt govt. has been overthrown and there is a chance for a real democracy in the Ukraine. Or maybe it is that you don't have a clue.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Or maybe you have no idea what I am thinking and you should not guess...next time just ask.

My post meant exactly what it said.


And for the record, I am glad ANY corrupt government is overthrown - especially is it is peacefully done (or at least, relatively so).
 
Montecresto said:
He did NOT screw anything in Syria. He was prevented by law, ethics and common sense from attacking Syria. It's amazing you don't understand that. He had no problem "unleashing" our military in Libya, and he has no right unleashing it in the Ukraine.
Click to expand...

That is exactly opposite what is correct. He had no basis to go to war against Libya without congressional approval. That is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

He can legally take actions concerning Ukraine because there already is a treaty concerning invasion of Ukraine.
 
Montecresto said:
He did NOT screw anything in Syria. He was prevented by law, ethics and common sense from attacking Syria. It's amazing you don't understand that. He had no problem "unleashing" our military in Libya, and he has no right unleashing it in the Ukraine.
Click to expand...

He should have never threatened to do so! Damn! Why is this so hard for you people to understand??
 
apdst said:
Two words: red line

He screwed the pooch in Syria. He has weakened our military in the eyes of the Russians.

Obama will never unleash our military. He's a coward.
Click to expand...

Congress, as much as Obama, has weakened our military. But weakened it from what perspective? The ability to fight two wars of occupation at once? So what? We don't NEED that kind of capability today.

Did he screw the pooch in Syria? The "red line" issue with Syria is one that only right wing hawks seem to embrace. "Oh Obama said 'red line' but then he didn't bomb the **** out of Syria so now the U.S. is screwed!" We shouldn't have been threatening anything of the sort to begin with.

And I don't want him "unleashing" our military in this matter. There is no valid reason to do so. Other than to satiate the "toughest kid on the block" syndrome that seems to set like water on the brain for many Americans. That doesn't make him a coward. That makes him reasonable. That makes him responsible. What would be our justification this time? Operation Crimean Freedom? Liberating people who don't want us liberating them just so we can say we are still tougher than Putin? According to many Crimean's the Russians are doing exactly what they've been wanting for some time. Liberating them from Kiev.

This uniquely American mindset that 'we're not happy unless we're blowing other people up" is maddening.
 
Lerxst said:
Congress, as much as Obama, has weakened our military. But weakened it from what perspective? The ability to fight two wars of occupation at once? So what? We don't NEED that kind of capability today.

Did he screw the pooch in Syria? The "red line" issue with Syria is one that only right wing hawks seem to embrace. "Oh Obama said 'red line' but then he didn't bomb the **** out of Syria so now the U.S. is screwed!" We shouldn't have been threatening anything of the sort to begin with.

And I don't want him "unleashing" our military in this matter. There is no valid reason to do so. Other than to satiate the "toughest kid on the block" syndrome that seems to set like water on the brain for many Americans. That doesn't make him a coward. That makes him reasonable. That makes him responsible. What would be our justification this time? Operation Crimean Freedom? Liberating people who don't want us liberating them just so we can say we are still tougher than Putin? According to many Crimean's the Russians are doing exactly what they've been wanting for some time. Liberating them from Kiev.

This uniquely American mindset that 'we're not happy unless we're blowing other people up" is maddening.
Click to expand...

He's purged experienced generals for political reasons and abolished DADT.

Like it, or not, in the eyes of people like Putin, allowing gays to serve openly is a sign of weakness.
 
Wait a minute. So Obama is a coward who won't unleash our military...but...he has in fact used the military and he shouldn't have, also he shouldn't have threatened to use the military because it was illegal. But he is still a coward who won't use the military.
 
apdst said:
Two words: red line He screwed the pooch in Syria. He has weakened our military in the eyes of the Russians. Obama will never unleash our military. He's a coward.
Click to expand...

Two words- CON game.

President Obama, unlike many CONs knows the difference between strategic and rhetoric. Syria has no clear 'good guys' to give massive aid to. Putin doesn't see much advantage to being Assad's new boyfriend or 20,000 Russians would be 'stabilizing' Syria. Much was made of a few Russian ships moved into the Med and yet they did nothing as it wouldn't gain the Russians anything and might plunge the world into at the very least a superpower fueled regional conflict.

President Obama didn't weaken the military enough to make anyone feel froggy. Crimea is an extremely sensitive region for the Russians. Not that BushII for all his pumping up the military and pitiful swagger did much for the break away enclaves in Georgia, but with Obama Putin could be reasonably sure he could safeguard his military bases in the Crimea and make sure the new Ukrainian government understood mistreating ethnic Russians would be frowned upon. (as in Syria the Ukraine has a few bad actors on both sides of the dispute)

What unleashing do you think will help the Ukraine and not lock us into a massive land battle on Russia's doorstep? We couldn't sustain a far smaller engagement in Iraq, what in THE hell do you think we can do on Russia's border?????

President Obama knew where and how many to unleash to kill Bin Hidin in Pakistan. Better thought is he knows how many and where to use military force.
 
joko104 said:
That is exactly opposite what is correct. He had no basis to go to war against Libya without congressional approval. That is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

He can legally take actions concerning Ukraine because there already is a treaty concerning invasion of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

I don't think I was defending Obama's actions in Libya! And I disagree that Putin has done anything in the Ukraine that warrants a military response from the US.
 
notquiteright said:
Two words- CON game.

President Obama, unlike many CONs knows the difference between strategic and rhetoric. Syria has no clear 'good guys' to give massive aid to. Putin doesn't see much advantage to being Assad's new boyfriend or 20,000 Russians would be 'stabilizing' Syria. Much was made of a few Russian ships moved into the Med and yet they did nothing as it wouldn't gain the Russians anything and might plunge the world into at the very least a superpower fueled regional conflict.

President Obama didn't weaken the military enough to make anyone feel froggy. Crimea is an extremely sensitive region for the Russians. Not that BushII for all his pumping up the military and pitiful swagger did much for the break away enclaves in Georgia, but with Obama Putin could be reasonably sure he could safeguard his military bases in the Crimea and make sure the new Ukrainian government understood mistreating ethnic Russians would be frowned upon. (as in Syria the Ukraine has a few bad actors on both sides of the dispute)

What unleashing do you think will help the Ukraine and not lock us into a massive land battle on Russia's doorstep? We couldn't sustain a far smaller engagement in Iraq, what in THE hell do you think we can do on Russia's border?????
Click to expand...


He should have just shutup about it, to begin with.

President Obama knew where and how many to unleash to kill Bin Hidin in Pakistan. Better thought is he knows how many and where to use military force.
Click to expand...

Uh...yeah! Obama planned that whole operation. Right! :lamo
 
apdst said:
He should have never threatened to do so! Damn! Why is this so hard for you people to understand??
Click to expand...

Well we agree on that part apdst!
 
Lerxst said:
Wait a minute. So Obama is a coward who won't unleash our military...but...he has in fact used the military and he shouldn't have, also he shouldn't have threatened to use the military because it was illegal. But he is still a coward who won't use the military.
Click to expand...

He's a coward, because he won't act on the threats that he issues.
 
Montecresto said:
Well we agree on that part apdst!
Click to expand...

Finally! You're catching on!

But, if he's going to threaten the use of force, he needs to do it, or shutup about it. His failure to act upon his threats has placed The United States in a weak position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom