• 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!

Russia Moves to Deploy Troops in Ukraine

Slyfox696 said:
What I've seen from this thread is the following:

One side thinks this is Obama's fault. Another side has given multiple reasons how that thinking is utterly absurd. The first side sticks fingers in ears chanting "na na na na na na, I can't hear you, so I'll just keep repeating my defeated position ad nauseam".

Is that pretty much how this thread has gone?
Click to expand...

Did you expect anything else?
 
Kobie said:
He's hardly alone on that note. I could list 10 posters off my head posting the same ultrapartisan horse**** that he is.
Click to expand...
It almost makes me think some of them are more loyal and supportive of Putin and Russia than Obama and the United States.
sawyerloggingon said:
You see what you want to see.
Click to expand...
Yes, and what I see makes me think your fingers must be tired, after having to work so hard to block out the common sense and reality thrown your way.
Kobie said:
Did you expect anything else?
Click to expand...
I always hope to say yes, but realistically have to say no.
 
Kobie said:
No, HE didn't. He played a part in it. So did Lech Walesa, Mikhail Gorbachev, Pope John Paul II, and a host of other people. Reagan did not soar down from the skies on the Golden Eagle of Republican and singlehandedly destroy the USSR -- in fact, the Berlin Wall and the USSR were both still standing when he left office.
Click to expand...

Reagan led the effort to defeat the Soviet Union, he was the general at the head of the charge. The officers and troops behind him share credit but he led the charge.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It almost makes me think some of them are more loyal and supportive of Putin and Russia than Obama and the United States.
Click to expand...

I can name at least two or three that DEFINITELY are. I won't name names, lest I run afoul of the mods, but scroll through the thread and you can see people who are just DELIGHTED that Putin is somehow (in their heads) in some position of dominance over Obama.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Reagan led the effort to defeat the Soviet Union, he was the general at the head of the charge. The officers and troops behind him share credit but he led the charge.
Click to expand...

Ahem.

There's lots of terms we can use to describe Reagan. "General" is not one of them, in any sense of the word.

The Soviet Union did more to sink the Soviet Union than Reagan did. A LOT more.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It almost makes me think some of them are more loyal and supportive of Putin and Russia than Obama and the United States.
Yes, and what I see makes me think your fingers must be tired, what with having to work so hard to block out the common sense and reality thrown your way.
I always hope to say yes, but realistically have to say no.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if you could talk about the subject itself rather than the people who are actually talking about the subject. Easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer as men on the field play the game isn't it.;)
 
Kobie said:
I can name at least two or three that DEFINITELY are. I won't name names, lest I run afoul of the mods, but scroll through the thread and you can see people who are just DELIGHTED that Putin is somehow (in their heads) in some position of dominance over Obama.
Click to expand...
It's okay, I'm sure it's the usual suspects. I was astounded at how giddy so many of them were when Putin wrote the op-ed in the New York Times around the time of the Syrian issue, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me at how happy they are now.
sawyerloggingon said:
It would be nice if you could talk about the subject itself rather than the people who are actually talking about the subject. Easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer as men on the field play the game isn't it.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if you'd address the many other points other posters have made in this thread, instead of ignoring them in favor of your fingers. But you don't seem interested in an actual discussion, so I really don't see the point in working to show you why you're wrong, especially after so many others already have.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You keep missing the point here. If we had a pres pushing congress to build a super military instead of one pushing them to tear it down Putin would be discouraged from military adventurism instead of encouraged as he is now.
Click to expand...

No he wouldn't.

Before going into the Mid East, we had to exaggerate evidence in order to get a "coalition of the willing".

Putin knows that for the US to try the same with Russia would mean war. Real war.

And he knows that our list of allies for such a venture will consist of us, ourselves, and we...because the rest of the UN nations aren't willing to risk real war to defend a former Russian territory.

That's called political strategy applied to military action.
 
humbolt said:
Not much to do now. But when Ukraine became a NATO candidate in 2008 the opportunity to prevent this was on the table. I know it's hindsight, but the pursuit of better relations with Russia appears to be a hopeful approach to placate an international bully. It didn't work then, it won't work now, and it won't work tomorrow.
Click to expand...

:agree: The Ukrainian people are not a down-trodden group like we see in so many parts of the world today. They have enjoyed their independence for a long time, and they are apparently not willing to once again be under a "big daddy" regime. I don't know what prompted Putin's move, other than the fact that he may want to recreate the old glory days of the Czars and the USSR, and have everything under Moscow's thumb.

Putin has decided on Crimea as his target, and it makes me wonder why. The country is rich in natural resources, though, plus it provides much of the food for the rest of the country since the land is excellent for farming. Is it a power grab for food resources in the future? Everyone becomes a peon again like in the old days, with centralized planning from Moscow? Interesting...

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You keep missing the point here. If we had a pres pushing congress to build a super military instead of one pushing them to tear it down Putin would be discouraged from military adventurism instead of encouraged as he is now.
Click to expand...

Oh, a "super military," eh? How much do we spend on this super military, and HOW THE **** DO WE PAY FOR IT. You conservatives are always the ones bitching about the debt/deficit ...
 
Kobie said:
Ahem.

There's lots of terms we can use to describe Reagan. "General" is not one of them, in any sense of the word.

The Soviet Union did more to sink the Soviet Union than Reagan did. A LOT more.
Click to expand...

Reagan made sure the USSR lost in Afghanistan. They were brutal in their efforts and likely would have retained control of that region and spread their influence without Reagan's intervention. The beating they took in Afghanistan militarily, economically and what it did to their moral was what ended them. If they had succeeded in that war they would still be here.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
What makes this different is we would not take over Mexico and install a pupett president. Putin is rebuilding the Soviet empire and obama's "reset" policy has been a huge failure. If Reagan was pres Putin would not do this.
Click to expand...

...yes we would, we do that all the time!

Kobie said:
Oh, a "super military," eh? How much do we spend on this super military, and HOW THE **** DO WE PAY FOR IT. You conservatives are always the ones bitching about the debt/deficit ...
Click to expand...

We spend more on our military than the next 20 countries combined and this guy thinks it needs more money.
 
polgara said:
:agree: The Ukrainian people are not a down-trodden group like we see in so many parts of the world today. They have enjoyed their independence for a long time, and they are apparently not willing to once again be under a "big daddy" regime. I don't know what prompted Putin's move, other than the fact that he may want to recreate the old glory days of the Czars and the USSR, and have everything under Moscow's thumb.

Putin has decided on Crimea as his target, and it makes me wonder why. The country is rich in natural resources, though, plus it provides much of the food for the rest of the country since the land is excellent for farming. Is it a power grab for food resources in the future? Everyone becomes a peon again like in the old days, with centralized planning from Moscow? Interesting...

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
Click to expand...

What prompted Putin's move is that Ukraine has often served as a buffer between Russia and Europe. Ukraine's president was a Putin stooge, he got run out of town, so now Putin's trying to move back in under the guise of protecting Ukraine's ethnic Russian population in the eastern part of the country and Crimea and reinstall his buddy into office. Putin likes having a friendly Ukraine between him and southeastern Europe, and as far as I can tell he's planning to keep it that way.
 
polgara said:
:agree: The Ukrainian people are not a down-trodden group like we see in so many parts of the world today. They have enjoyed their independence for a long time, and they are apparently not willing to once again be under a "big daddy" regime. I don't know what prompted Putin's move, other than the fact that he may want to recreate the old glory days of the Czars and the USSR, and have everything under Moscow's thumb.

Putin has decided on Crimea as his target, and it makes me wonder why. The country is rich in natural resources, though, plus it provides much of the food for the rest of the country since the land is excellent for farming. Is it a power grab for food resources in the future? Everyone becomes a peon again like in the old days, with centralized planning from Moscow? Interesting...

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Money.

Plain and simple. Right now, he has to PURCHASE the goods he gets from them. Far easier and cheaper to just TAKE them.

Why do companies but other companies?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Reagan made sure the USSR lost in Afghanistan. They were brutal in their efforts and likely would have retained control of that region and spread their influence without Reagan's intervention. The beating they took in Afghanistan militarily, economically and what it did to their moral was what ended them. If they had succeeded in that war they would still be here.
Click to expand...

BULL****. Jimmy Carter initiated our efforts in Afghanistan. All Reagan did was drop the Mooj like a hot potato once the Russkies pulled out. Nice attempt at revisionist history, but it was Carter who started that.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Reagan made sure the USSR lost in Afghanistan. They were brutal in their efforts and likely would have retained control of that region and spread their influence without Reagan's intervention. The beating they took in Afghanistan militarily, economically and what it did to their moral was what ended them. If they had succeeded in that war they would still be here.
Click to expand...

And that whole plan worked out fantastically.
 
Kobie said:
BULL****. Jimmy Carter initiated our efforts in Afghanistan. All Reagan did was drop the Mooj like a hot potato once the Russkies pulled out. Nice attempt at revisionist history, but it was Carter who started that.
Click to expand...

Funny how in one breath you libs give Reagan all the blame for creating UBL then in the next breath give Carter credit for arming the Afghan freedom fighters against the USSR.:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom