Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 143

Thread: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Can't understand how you could disagree. Point by point, the EU/US and Russia all were negotiating with the Ukraine, for several years.
    I understand the Ukraine was negotiating to enter the EU but what were the Americans negotiating?
    In the end Ukraine felt they were getting a better deal with Russia and went with it.
    You must mean the Crimea here, not the Ukraine. And of course the vote, when being coerced by a foreign country, cannot be taken seriously.

    The EU/US didn't like it and immediate supported a violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government and supported the "new" pro-West government.
    Who in the EU and who in the US were behind this "violent overthrow"? It seems the Ukrainian Parliament is doing alright and have elections planned for May 25.

    Russia isn't going to stand for that, no more than we would have, had Ukraine went with the EU deal and Russia had intervened in and supported the violent overthrow of the government and recognised as the "new" government, one that was pro-Russian.
    Why wouldn't Russia |stand for that"? What concern s it of theirs if the Ukraine joins the EU?
    And you know this to be true.
    Now you're being silly again.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Iraq didn't attack the US or the UK. The US breaks international laws, so does the UK and probably every other country.
    In fact the law was well in place. Best not go to analogies.

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post

    From Wiki itself.

    Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Ukrainian: Ві́ктор Фе́дорович Януко́вич, About this sound listen (help·info); Russian: Виктор Фёдорович Янукович; born 9 July 1950) is a Ukrainian politician who was the President of Ukraine from February 2010 until February 2014 when he fled Kiev, and the Ukrainian parliament voted on 22 February to remove him from his post on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties.[1] The legislative removal lacked the required votes according to the constitution in effect at the time....snip


    That part about them not having the required votes.....did make the news.


    Only Briefly!

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    From Wiki itself.

    Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Ukrainian: Ві́ктор Фе́дорович Януко́вич, About this sound listen (help·info); Russian: Виктор Фёдорович Янукович; born 9 July 1950) is a Ukrainian politician who was the President of Ukraine from February 2010 until February 2014 when he fled Kiev, and the Ukrainian parliament voted on 22 February to remove him from his post on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties.[1] The legislative removal lacked the required votes according to the constitution in effect at the time....snip


    That part about them not having the required votes.....did make the news.


    Only Briefly!
    Yes, and you can see that nowhere does it mention May 25 of last year. The French were referring to the upcoming elections on May 25, 2014.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Yes, and you can see that nowhere does it mention May 25 of last year. The French were referring to the upcoming elections on May 25, 2014.
    Okay.....it don't say May 25. But the French says it goes by the Legitimate vote. Which Right here it is pointing out how the Parliament wasn't able to remove Yanokovich even with their own Constitution. Which means until May.....who does that leave as the Technical Ruling Government of the Ukraine?


    That's Right.....Yanokovich. The rest by the Ukraine until May. Is acting illegally.

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Defense spending has two components:

    1) Annual appropriations
    2) Supplemental appropriations that have been adopted to fund war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and provide for other special needs.

    The large cuts I cited are cuts in the annual appropriations. Annual appropriations came to nearly $600 billion in FY2013. I favor reduced cuts in that spending.

    Supplemental appropriations can and should be reduced as the war efforts and related activities are wound down in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
    My point is that in order to match deeds to the words of making it clear that NATO members will be safeguarded, even with the use of military force, requires money for equipment and men. My understanding is that some NATO countries are in dire need of basic equipment like armoured personnel carriers. They don't have money to spend, so the money will have to come from somewhere. And if you are really going to be serious about it, you need to station some troops in critical places as a display of resolve. It would seem to me that the money that went into Iraq and Afghanistan would now be diverted to those areas, so TOTAL defense expenditures would likely have to stay at current levels, if you really want to convince people that you mean business in that regard.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Okay.....it don't say May 25. But the French says it goes by the Legitimate vote. Which Right here it is pointing out how the Parliament wasn't able to remove Yanokovich even with their own Constitution. Which means until May.....who does that leave as the Technical Ruling Government of the Ukraine?


    That's Right.....Yanokovich. The rest by the Ukraine until May. Is acting illegally.
    What the French actually said then is that they will respect the election of May 25, 2014, right? That would make sense.

    The Ukrainian Parliament seems to have things well in hand, if they are not invaded again by the Russians.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The neoconservative foreign policy advocates using power as an instrument to expand democracy, liberal values, etc. Calls for U.S. military intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict reflected neoconservative goals.

    I'm not advocating anything like that. In fact, I repeatedly opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria and Libya, as no meaningful U.S. interests were involved.

    My focus is not expanding U.S. military guarantees to non-NATO members and I don't support expansion of NATO. Instead, I believe there should be greater security cooperation and integration among existing NATO members. Moreover, I'm suggesting that it would be better for U.S. military strength to be maintained near current levels rathern than slashed to pre-WW II levels in some areas. I am not calling for any kind of new arms race, though I believe the ongoing managed retreat from space-related R&D is short-sighted.

    Finally, I favor medium-term fiscal consolidation. That effort cannot fall mainly or wholly on the Defense budget. Mandatory spending programs will need to be reformed to become fiscally sustainable. Some degree of tax hikes will likely also be needed to bridge financing gaps.
    Well, I respect the restraint you showed in your response...kudos.


    As for your points, I have no problem with more co-operation with other allies but I am TOTALLY opposed to more militarism and higher deficits for military spending.

    America has troops in over 150 countries, props up corrupt regimes, bombs other countries at will (which is a technical act-of-war), gives away tens of billions in arms to whomever it wishes and has caused tremendous death and misery (directly and indirectly) to many countries that it decided to ram democracy down their throats/change governments they don't like.

    Not only is it wrong, hypocritical (Obama freaks out about a referendum in Crimea but embraces an illegal coup in Ukraine) and causing much hatred against Americans (for drone strikes, supporting horrible regimes like the Saudi Royal family, Gitmo, etc.)...it is (partly) bankrupting the United States.

    The stock market is being indirectly supported by the Fed 'printing' money out of thin air and 'artificially' suppressing interest rates (the latter also 'artificially' propping up the real estate market). Unemployment is stuck on 'lousy' (and if you take the participation rate into account, it's stuck on 'awful'). The deficit is over $500 billion and (according to the CBO) is due to rise again in a few years - and that is at present interest rates.
    Just today, the Fed is talking about raising the prime rate again sooner rather then later...and when they do that, the deficit will skyrocket. For every 1% the prime rises, apparently the interest on the national debt goes up $200 billion per year. So if the prime returns to what it was a few years ago (say, 6.25%), that would (apparently) mean $600 billion more added to the deficit on interest payments alone. That would put it back over $1 trillion per year again.
    Plus, what will happen to the real estate/auto industries once these incredibly low mortgage/financing rates are gone?

    And even though with the proposed defense cuts, America will still dwarf both China and Russia's military budgets combined...you are suggesting spending more on national defense?
    No offense, but this is fiscal irresponsibility...not that your 'group' is alone in this.
    The Keynesians want huge deficits for economic stimulus, the liberals want huge deficits are enormous social programs and the conservatives/Neo-cons want huge deficits for increases in the already gigantic military budget.

    DOES ANYONE EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN AMERICA ANY LONGER - other then a few Austrian schoolers?


    IMO, what goes on in other countries is NONE of America's business other then wars between countries (not inside them) and major acts of genocide/human suffering.
    If America spent 1/2 what it does now on her military, she would still have a military that towers over any other and would be completely capable of defending her shores with EASE (which is all a military should be funded to do in peace time, IMO).

    But if Neo-cons want a strong military for decades to come, then the economy/budget must be the primary focus - a war against unemployment and fiscal irresponsibility...not hypothetical/potential adversaries.

    Finally, if conservatives want a gigantic military so America can police the world...then - with respect - the least they could do is come up with a way to pay for it without bankrupting America.
    And, IMO, 'just take it from other programs' is not going to do it. America no longer has the economic strength to do that.
    Reagan's America did, 2014 America does not.
    Last edited by DA60; 03-19-14 at 09:21 PM.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    What the French actually said then is that they will respect the election of May 25, 2014, right? That would make sense.

    The Ukrainian Parliament seems to have things well in hand, if they are not invaded again by the Russians.

    Yeah he pretty much said Right here.....the Only Legitimate vote was that. He was clear on ONLY.


    Fabius told radio station France Inter that a referendum in the Crimea region on joining Russia set for March 16 was illegitimate and that the annexation of the region by Russia would be illegal.

    "We cannot accept something that is illegal and which will also have very serious consequences," Fabius said.

    The minister said the "only legitimate vote" was that for the president of Ukraine on May 25.....snip~

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    My point is that in order to match deeds to the words of making it clear that NATO members will be safeguarded, even with the use of military force, requires money for equipment and men. My understanding is that some NATO countries are in dire need of basic equipment like armoured personnel carriers. They don't have money to spend, so the money will have to come from somewhere. And if you are really going to be serious about it, you need to station some troops in critical places as a display of resolve. It would seem to me that the money that went into Iraq and Afghanistan would now be diverted to those areas, so TOTAL defense expenditures would likely have to stay at current levels, if you really want to convince people that you mean business in that regard.
    That may well be the case. Even then, it is very unlikely that the figure would approach $1 trillion per year.

Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •