• 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!

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

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.

Yep! But they can't accept it.
 
Russia went to the UN to get authorization to invade Crimea?

Nuland went to the UN to get permission to replace the elected president of Ukraine?
 
The dependency on Russian Gas varies according to country, with many Eastern European Countries and Countries such as Finland totally dependent, whilst other have less dependency.

Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Britain does not rely on Russian Gas instead relying on North Sea Gas and Gas shipped in on large LNG Carriers and stored in places such as the Isle of Grain near London.

The Isle of Grain alone having the ability to supply 20 per cent of the UK’s forecast gas demand. However to build more LNG storage facilities, LNG Ships and other such facilities in order to supply whole European countries in the short term would be a mammoth task, and as for other alternative fuel sources they tend to be far more long term options.

A loss of Russian Gas would have serious implications for Russia and many European countries including Germany, and to replace Russian Gas with LNG would require a concerted effort by the west not seen since the Berlin Airlift. Whilst the West would have to take control of whole industries, markets and resources, although it's certainly not an impossible scenario, especially as many western countries such as the US, Canada and Australia have significant Natural Gas Supplies and emerging shale gas deposits, and Europe itself has the potential to carry out future shale gas extraction in certain regions.

If the West was to work together to negate the European reliance on Russian Energy it would without doubt be a devastating blow to Russia's Economy.

LNG Carrier

National Grid - Isle of Grain LNG

Europe looking at alternatives to Russian Gas

What further sanctions could Russia face?

_73381797_russia_trade_partners_464gr.gif


_73367223_eu_russia_trade_464gr.gif



Excellent Post Chatter!
award_star_gold_2.png
There have been a few others that have correlating information as to the economics and resources playing out. Quite Informative Indeed!
information.png
 
We should no longer bother to try to prevent Iran or any other nation from developing nuclear weapons. It is vital to the interests of every country to develop a nuclear arsenal. Nor should any country believe a word any nuclear power says including the United States. It's official. The United States and NATO are liars acting in conjunction with Russia to divide up the world between us.

Do you REALLY think the Ukraine could have stopped the annexation of the Crimea if it still had Cold War era missiles? :doh

Remember the Ukraine was NOT invaded.

There is NO, ZERO, NADA defense treaty with NATO or the USofA.

While ranting about two superpowers dividing the world don't forget China... :peace
 
Nuland went to the UN to get permission to replace the elected president of Ukraine?

The United States didn't replace anyone. That was the Ukrainian people.
 
Nuland went to the UN to get permission to replace the elected president of Ukraine?

Nuland doesn't need permission from anyone. The Great Cookie Monster just grabs wrongdoers by the throat, throws them into the street and tells them never to return again. Putin may be next.
 
That may well be the case. Even then, it is very unlikely that the figure would approach $1 trillion per year.

Currently total defense outlays approach a trillion a year. In order to do what you purpose properly, I you have to keep the size of the military at current levels at least, if not increase it. Then you need to beef up all those areas in Europe that are not up to task. So yeah, I think you are likely looking at one trillion, if not more. But that's just my speculation.

What's for sure is that US cannot continue to spend one trillion dollars a year on defense.
 
Then who is it hiding their faces, carrying weapons, and shooting at the Ukrainian people? Are you saying it is other Ukrainians?

CON game- where are the Russian soldiers? NOT in the Ukraine but the Crimea.

Is the Crimea a province of the Ukraine? NO it is a semi autonomous region attach administratively to the Ukraine in the very recent past.

Did the Russian troops invade? NO they were already in the Crimea BEFORE any crisis due to a treaty with the Ukraine.

While many pictures exist of winter weather uniformed troops there are as many of uncovered faces.

But bless your leedle heart you sure try and distort the facts.... :2wave:
 
Anchoring foreign policy to the nation's critical interests and focusing on those interests and strategic allies should reduce the risk of "militarism." Such a policy would largely exclude the use of military force for events that fall outside of those parameters. It would also encourage the more robust use of soft power (diplomacy, economic/technical/financial assistance, etc.) in the other cases where military options are not pursued and interests that fall short of critical ones are involved.

In the longer-run, deterrence should result in lower costs than would otherwise be the case. Where deterrence fails, conflicts can erupt and conflicts are far costlier than deterrence. Putting aside political arguments concerning the recent war in Iraq, there's little question that on a present value basis, the costs of the war were vastly higher than those associated with maintaining the prior containment regime. Moreover, the human costs were also vastly higher. Furthermore, following the war, one found that the containment regime had worked remarkably well as Iraq had been deterred from relaunching its WMD activities.
What? 4,000 U.S. deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's, Iran has far more influence in Iraq then before the invasion, both gays and women in Iraq now have far less rights then before, huge sectarian violence, iffy power grid...and all of that was to stop a WMD program that no longer existed?
That is your idea of money/lives well spent?
Iraq was a gigantic failure. So has been Afghanistan. When U.S. Troops leave, the country will probably go back to just about where it was before...Taliban dominated south, a loose group running the north (Northern Alliance). And all for what...more brave, dead Americans and more hundreds of billions of tax dollars wasted.
This is the kind of Neo-con nonsense I am talking about.


Democratic movements have largely internal origins. The fallacy that has influenced American foreign policy since at least the time of President Woodrow Wilson is the idea that all peoples everywhere want democracy. The quest for individual freedom has been a strong one throughout history, but that quest is not exactly the same thing as desiring democracy. Moreover, the aspirations of people are, in part, a function of a society's structure (institutions, economics, culture, etc.) and history. The fundamental Sunni-Shia divide is part of the reason one has witnessed illiberal regimes in the Middle East. The peoples see things as a zero-sum game where one faction can only gain at the expense of the other (no "win-win" conceptions) and that strong rule is required to prevent societal fragmentation along sectarian lines. Western idealism assumes that authoritarian rule is largely an accident and that "regime change" can, therefore, quickly allow for democratic forces to take hold. The evidence has not been kind to that assumption.

There's also a tendency for the U.S. to view others as we view ourselves. Hence, the sectarian uprising that followed what had been protests for democracy was quickly lumped in as a democratic revolution in the tradition of the American revolution, democratic yearning in Eastern Europe during the Soviet era, etc. The reality is that a repressed majority was simply seeking to gain control over a brutal minority-led regime. Consistent with ethnic conflicts, brutality was in abundance and liberal ideals concerning humanitarian protections were discarded to the greatest extent possible.
Regional uprisings were quickly coined the "Arab Spring" in an analogy to the democratic Prague Spring. Not surprisingly, given the region's structural and historical context, the democratic illusions have proved largely unfounded.

The focus on national interests and strategic allies would preclude the use of force in such situations. Diplomacy and other non-military programs could "test" possible democratic aspirations, give support to genuine movements, and limit the risks should those movements prove less than democratic.

In terms of Saudi Arabia, among other non-democratic states, the U.S. has to deal with the world as it is. The U.S. can't dissociate from dealing with such governments when U.S. interests are at stake. To do so would simply be the other side of the coin of military interventions in the name of ideals. In this case, the U.S. would refuse to engage in relationships in the name of ideals. Both approaches are extreme polar opposites. Constructive relationships are often necessary in advancing the nation's interests and promoting stability. Of course, the U.S. can and should use its soft power to encourage improved human rights, etc., and influence the factors that might lead to a more favorable climate for democracy. The latter would require a lot of time and patience, as societal structures evolve slowly.

You are looking at things in either-or terms...you are not looking underneath.

Saudi Arabia runs a horrific regime that is one if the most backwards in the world (women are not even allowed to drive)...and America props it all up. And it is totally wasteful as less then 16% of U.S. oil imports come from Saudi Arabia (and less then 25% from all Persian Gulf nations). America does not need the Saudi's NEARLY as much as the Saudi's need America.

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports


Prove to me - using links to UNBIASED facts/stats, not opinions - that America would be worse off were her military budget 1/2 of what it is today.

Not with theories and conjecture...using ONLY unbiased facts/figures.

We both know you cannot.
 
Continued...



There's little question that QE has impacted asset prices (equties and real estate) and that U.S. interest rates are historically low for now. Even if the Fed had not hinted at possible rate hikes down the road, one should not assume that the anomalous low rates would continue indefinitely. Individuals, businesses, and policy makers should all have reasonable ideas as to how they would cope in an environment where interest rates returned to at least the long-run historical average. Policy makers will need to consider the whole budget, not just discretionary spending, in their analysis and that will mean trying to find ways to rein in the rapid growth of health expenditures and consideration of mandatory spending reforms. It will likely require some degree of tax hikes to bridge the gap between spending-related savings and policy needs. Increasing the nation's long-run economic growth rate can help, but doing so is not simply a matter of corporate tax rates as some politicians suggest. The complex interaction of an educated workforce, investments in research and development and more broadly innovation/improvement, global macroeconomic developments, changing demographics, etc., all have an impact. Arguably, the issue of current corporate tax rates could be fairly inconsequential in that larger scheme. In other words, even if the corporate rates were reduced to 0%, the impact on long-run growth would be fairly modest, because the marginal returns from the current level would be small unlike if one were reducing rates from a much higher level. Having said this, the U.S. still has a foundation and opportunity for economic strength. The choices it makes going forward (private and public sectors) will determine how much of that opportunity is leveraged and whether that foundation is strengthened or eroded.
No offense, but you talk like a politician.

So your solution to financing a vast military industrial complex is to - what a shock coming from a conservative - cut social programs and raise taxes if the former is not enough. And how has that worked out?

The solution is to, IMO, balance the budget by cutting military expenditures AND social programs about equally, reduce the Fed mandate to ONLY inflation/deflation monitoring - no more 'full employment' mandate, end corporate taxes, simplify personal taxes with a flat tax (over an $8-10,000 0% rate) with no deductions (except for charitable contributions) and no difference between capital gains and income tax rates and have the government stay out of 'stimulating' the economy (no bailouts, stimuli, extended unemployment benefits, mark-to-market rule changes, too-big-to-fail).



I don't favor "policing the world." The goal for me would be a narrower one: a capacity to safeguard the nation's critical interests and strategic allies and perhaps deal with genuine cases of genocide (as defined under the Convention on Genocide; neither Syria nor Libya would fit that definition). Those allies would also make a reasonable contribution, of course. Whether one is dealing with the neoconservative proposition of using military power to advance the sphere of democracy or the recent liberal notion of a "responsibility to protect," both approaches would overextend the nation if adopted literally. A degree of balance is needed and I believe the focus I suggested would strike a balance albeit an imperfect one. Power (military and economic) is a scarce resource and it should be used wisely. Overextension can only erode that power.

I say America should mind her own business except when large genocide or wars between countries takes place.

And it is impossible to prove that America would not be far better off if she followed this.
 
What? 4,000 U.S. deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's, Iran has far more influence in Iraq then before the invasion, both gays and women in Iraq now have far less rights then before, huge sectarian violence, iffy power grid...and all of that was to stop a WMD program that no longer existed?
That is your idea of money/lives well spent?

Either you misunderstood me or I was not sufficiently clear. My reference to the Containment regime concerned the policies that were in place prior to the war (select sanctions, limited no fly zones, etc.). I believe that approach was preferable to the war.

The post-war outcome showed that Containment was less costly than the war (in terms of financial and human costs), less disruptive to regional stability (didn't alter the region's balance of power vis-a-vis Iran), and was highly effective in deterring Iraq from pursuing WMD (Iraq had not restarted WMD-related activities).
 
Putting aside political arguments concerning the recent war in Iraq, there's little question that on a present value basis, the costs of the war were vastly higher than those associated with maintaining the prior containment regime.

Without a doubt. This though is an inappropriate comparison. The sanctions regime was on its last legs. It was leaky as hell. The US commitment to maintaining the No-Fly-Zone was near its end. Other countries were circumventing the trade sanctions. The choice to be made was a war to oust Saddam or finding a way to live with an unrestrained Saddam. As a threat to Iran, he was useful. Look at Iranian influence in Iraq today. We've weakened on bad actor state and therein strengthened its neighbor.

Moreover, the aspirations of people are, in part, a function of a society's structure (institutions, economics, culture, etc.) and history. The fundamental Sunni-Shia divide is part of the reason one has witnessed illiberal regimes in the Middle East.

I think you're correct but you don't go to the more fundamental issue - 50% rate of consanguineous marriages. This preceded the birth of Islam and is woven deep into the regional cultures. Culture is an iterative loop, one cultural practice informs another which in turn influences the first practice. Cousin marriage allows for wealth and power to concentrate within a family over generations rather than being diluted. It protects the clan members like a State and Rule of Law would in a western society. We can't graft Democracy onto such a host, for the host will reject the foreign organ being grafted onto it.

There's also a tendency for the U.S. to view others as we view ourselves.

This is something that we CAN fix.

Regional uprisings were quickly coined the "Arab Spring" in an analogy to the democratic Prague Spring. Not surprisingly, given the region's structural and historical context, the democratic illusions have proved largely unfounded.

What do you mean "not surprisingly." To you and I, certainly, but I didn't see any foreign policy heavyweights making such predictions as these events unfolded. In fact, I saw Administration officials encouraging and cheering on such uprisings with the full expectation that magic would happen. And not to spare the Republicans, they too were doing the same. There is a dangerous level of intellectual inbreeding that shapes American foreign policy views.

The U.S. can't dissociate from dealing with such governments when U.S. interests are at stake.

What you describe as American interests are better described as Western interests or Industrialized Nations' interests. If we removed ME oil from the equation, it's really hard to articulate any compelling interest in the region. We don't import much from them, they don't generate much IP, we don't even export much to them. Now with oil back in the picture, America could substitute their oil with oil from Canada. Europe, China, Africa, South America and Japan can't though. They're the principal beneficiaries of what America is stabilizing. Let them carry the cost burden.
 
Either you misunderstood me or I was not sufficiently clear. My reference to the Containment regime concerned the policies that were in place prior to the war (select sanctions, limited no fly zones, etc.). I believe that approach was preferable to the war.

The post-war outcome showed that Containment was less costly than the war (in terms of financial and human costs), less disruptive to regional stability (didn't alter the region's balance of power vis-a-vis Iran), and was highly effective in deterring Iraq from pursuing WMD (Iraq had not restarted WMD-related activities).
Sorry, guess I misunderstood you...though I still stand beside what I typed.

To be honest, I sort of speed read your post. No offense, but I run my business, I don't have the time or the inclination to get into gigantic discussions on chat forums on anything but financial subjects (I am a financial investor). I just come here to kill a little time (sometimes to learn/teach).

I agree that containment was far better. But I still say that America has no business involving herself in the internal matters of other countries outside of those that pose a direct threat to the sovereignty of America (that does NOT include terrorism) OR if significant genocide is taking place.

No other reason.

If you want to know how I feel about almost any aspect of U.S. Foreign policy, just see what Ron Paul thinks about it...that will probably be what I think as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom