• 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!

Ron Paul slams US on Crimea crisis and says Russia sanctions are an 'act of war'

Well I don't know if I'd say Ron Paul is full of common sense. Sanctions are not an act of war. I do agree we tend to find excuses to have a 'national interest' in things that don't concern us, but his call to pack it all up and come home isn't practical.

I don't see sanctions having any real affect on the situation, Putin doesn't need our permission to go anywhere but perhaps the UN. Europe needs Russian NG and we can't replace that energy consumption. it is more a case of our internal politics driving international policies.

I believe its a matter for the country being crippled by the sanctions to decide if its an act of war or not.
 
Have we had sanctions against Cuba?
He's right. Sanctions have always been an act of war, whether a country can respond to it as such (Japan) or not (Iran).
 
Have we had sanctions against Cuba?

If we didn't, Monte would be all over us about being buddies with dictators. We'd be pelted with pics of Bush kissing Castro and a narrative of long romantic walks on the beach. I'd support the sanctions against Cuba just to not have to suffer that sophomoric crap.
 
Over our 227 years as a Nation, sanctions could have been called Tariffs countless times.

As for Putin, let him turn off the oil and gas lines.
Europe has lived through rationing before.
We'll see how long Putin can do without money, while the USA and the Mideast (re)supply the EU/Ukraine.

And when Putin wants to come back, you know what to tell him !!


He's right. Sanctions have always been an act of war, whether a country can respond to it as such (Japan) or not (Iran).
 
Over our 227 years as a Nation, sanctions could have been called Tariffs countless times.

As for Putin, let him turn off the oil and gas lines.
Europe has lived through rationing before.
We'll see how long Putin can do without money, while the USA and the Mideast (re)supply the EU/Ukraine.

And when Putin wants to come back, you know what to tell him !!

No they couldn't. Sanctions are different than tariffs.
 
The White House claims the election was a complete fraud and Russia brought in pre-marked ballots to count. Do claim the Obama White House is lying?

I would think elections called for and overseen by an invading and occupying military force seeking to have the voters vote for the county of the invaders certainly would have to be an honest election, right?

The Russian forces are NOT invading...they have a pre-agreement to be there (at the Black Sea Fleet base). And they are not all over the country. They are - to my knowledge, outside of a few isolated areas - pretty much around their huge military base where they are allowed to be by agreement with Ukraine. And they were invited by the local government AND have overwhelming local support.
So having foreign troops precludes having a free and fair election? Then what about all those Iraqi elections when their country was crawling with foreign invaders (American soldiers)? Is anyone seriously suggesting that those elections were not free and fair - of course not. Or what about Vietnam when the U.S. was still there? Same thing...no problem. What about Afghanistan elections? No problem. Even though there were hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and there are only 20,000 or so Russian troops in the Crimea.
To suggest the Iraqi/Vietnam/Afghanistani elections were fair when U.S. forces TOTALLY dominated those areas during the elections...and yet 20,000+ Russian troops (when most of Crimeans ARE of Russian descent AND most polls stated that the people clearly wanted to return to Russia) in the Crimea suddenly makes that election bogus.
PLUS Obama recognizes the illegal overthrow of a democratically elected government.

So an illegal coup is fine but a legal referendum is not...hypocrisy.

This is nonsense - if you cannot see that, too bad for you.


And I would not put it past Obama to lie EVER..or any other POTUS if the desire suited them. If say there are pre-marked ballots...then show us their proof or they should shut up.
 
Last edited:
I'll put it in a context for you, closer to home. Here in Canada, the Province of Quebec has been talking separation for a few decades now and actually had several votes on the matter, which failed. Our Supreme Court ruled several years back that a vote on a Province separating now has certain rules that must be followed before it's legit - as well as certain consequences, such as assuming share of the national debt, creation of their own currency, etc.

Now, if the Quebec Provincial government (insert Crimea's Provincial government for context) decided to ignore the federal government and supreme court's rules for a referendum authorizing separation and held such a vote within a week or two, the vote to separate would have no legal basis or grounds for being recognized as legitimate. Add to that, if US militias - quasi US military troops - flooded into the Province of Quebec and managed the vote, threatened the populace, and the US Congress passed a law authorizing US intervention in the vote and the US President talked up Quebec joining the US, you would then have a situation similar to what's happening in Crimea and the Ukraine these days.

Good post util you got to >" US President talked up Quebec joining the US "< Nothing even close to comparing what happened or is happening in Crimea. No providence in Canada ever had any connections or ties at any time to the United States.

Where as the Ukraine back during the mid 1600's asked to become a protective nation under the Carist Russia and would remain so until the Bolshevik Revolution and they tried to become an independent sovereign nation but lost and were brought under the new USSR in 1920 and remained so until the end of the Cold War.

.
The Ukraine has had a close relationship with Russia for over 350 years.

Otherwise a good post
 
Ron Paul is coo coo...

So he is "coo-coo" for respecting the Constitution while those who violate it (Dubya, Obama) are sane? :roll:
 
I'll put it in a context for you, closer to home. Here in Canada, the Province of Quebec has been talking separation for a few decades now and actually had several votes on the matter, which failed. Our Supreme Court ruled several years back that a vote on a Province separating now has certain rules that must be followed before it's legit - as well as certain consequences, such as assuming share of the national debt, creation of their own currency, etc.

Now, if the Quebec Provincial government (insert Crimea's Provincial government for context) decided to ignore the federal government and supreme court's rules for a referendum authorizing separation and held such a vote within a week or two, the vote to separate would have no legal basis or grounds for being recognized as legitimate. Add to that, if US militias - quasi US military troops - flooded into the Province of Quebec and managed the vote, threatened the populace, and the US Congress passed a law authorizing US intervention in the vote and the US President talked up Quebec joining the US, you would then have a situation similar to what's happening in Crimea and the Ukraine these days.

Your analogy breaks down in that is it totally unrealistic. The US would not want Quebec as we don't understand French and are too damn lazy (or stupid) to learn it. ;)
 
Someone is going to have to explain this more to me as I don't seem to get it. Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. That's their right, no? I am sure there is some behind the scenes going on here, I just don't know enough about the situation I guess.

Here was the vote choice...

1. ___ Leave Ukrane now

2. ___ Leave Ukrane later
 
Good post util you got to >" US President talked up Quebec joining the US "< Nothing even close to comparing what happened or is happening in Crimea. No providence in Canada ever had any connections or ties at any time to the United States.

Where as the Ukraine back during the mid 1600's asked to become a protective nation under the Carist Russia and would remain so until the Bolshevik Revolution and they tried to become an independent sovereign nation but lost and were brought under the new USSR in 1920 and remained so until the end of the Cold War.

.
The Ukraine has had a close relationship with Russia for over 350 years.

Otherwise a good post

The only counter to that I would make is that early in Canada's history and before we were formed as a nation, Quebec, being French, was more "friendly" and supportive of the USA than it was of the British who conquered them. In addition, during the war of 1812, many in Quebec hoped that the US would defeat the British and take over control of Canada. Fortunately, for Canada, there were plenty of British who fled the US for Canada after the British defeat there in the late 1700s and fought to keep the US from taking over north of the 49th parallel.

Here in Canada, we know that many in Quebec during their separation referendums have talked about joining the US and have been known to travel to Washington, the site of American political power and New York, the site of American financial power, to push for just such an alignment.

In the end, however, I was only proposing a hypothetical whereby the American administration at the time encouraged the secession of of Quebec in order to unite with the US.
 
I think he is out of office, was only a congressman if the term only applies. He did run for president but didn't do all that good. I am not even sure he deserves a thread on him. Now having said that, I think with all of this Ukraine stuff, the Crimea etc all being in Russia's backyard, it really isn't all that much our business. History shows the Ukraine has been part of Russia for a very long time, it is their sphere of influence. Now if Russia started to work its way west and was threatening Poland, then I would be more worried about it than with the Crimea. So in a way I am siding with Ron Paul although I do not think he deserves this attention.

He's a former Congressman who sparked a movement. He was philosophically consistent and was beholden to no special interests but his constituents, which is a breath of fresh air to anyone who's been paying attention. Disagree with him if you must, many do, but one absolutely cannot argue that he hasn't been influential on some level.
 
He's a former Congressman who sparked a movement. He was philosophically consistent and was beholden to no special interests but his constituents, which is a breath of fresh air to anyone who's been paying attention. Disagree with him if you must, many do, but one absolutely cannot argue that he hasn't been influential on some level.

Perhaps, but has the movement continued or has it basically gone dormant without him to lead it? I agree he has some good ideas, but i would bet the vast majority of those who followed him during his presidential run have left and gone back to their normal business or routine.
 
Perhaps, but has the movement continued or has it basically gone dormant without him to lead it? I agree he has some good ideas, but i would bet the vast majority of those who followed him during his presidential run have left and gone back to their normal business or routine.

The movement gains more traction everyday, contrary to what those who oppose his views might have you believe.
 
The movement gains more traction everyday, contrary to what those who oppose his views might have you believe.

I'll take your word for it. But I haven't seen anything of it doing so. Probably because of where I live. One can only hope, his message is more of a traditional conservative type ala Barry Goldwater than what passes as conservatism today.
 
Good post util you got to >" US President talked up Quebec joining the US "< Nothing even close to comparing what happened or is happening in Crimea. No providence in Canada ever had any connections or ties at any time to the United States.

Where as the Ukraine back during the mid 1600's asked to become a protective nation under the Carist Russia and would remain so until the Bolshevik Revolution and they tried to become an independent sovereign nation but lost and were brought under the new USSR in 1920 and remained so until the end of the Cold War.

.
The Ukraine has had a close relationship with Russia for over 350 years.

Otherwise a good post

Which is why the US needs to be out of it, should never have supported the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected government and immediately recognise an unelected pro Western government, TOO transparent, and obvious as to why Russia is taking the very legitimate action in response.
 

Ron Paul's naivete is on full display yet again. Even as the U.S. supported the protest movement in Ukraine, it is more than a stretch to suggest that the U.S. backed or engineered a "coup." Moreover, Paul's opposition to economic aid to Ukraine flys in the face of his supposed advocacy of free trade and economic relations. On closer inspection, his commitment to free trade and economic relations has always been questionable, as when it came to concrete substance to advance such positions--free trade agreements, institutions, and mechanisms--he has persistently opposed such substance. Actions speak far louder than words.

Overall, his position concerning Ukraine and Crimea highlights anew the reality that he was out of his league in seeking the Presidency. World leaders hostile to U.S. interests, including but not limited to those in Iran and North Korea would have exploited his superficial understanding of world affairs and his naivete to erode American economic and national security interests. American allies would have been put in a bad position as American reliability would have undermined under Paul's foreign policy abdication.
 
It appears that, once again, Ron Paul is dead-nuts on in his opinions. At least, he is in my opinion.

I am sure he will get poo-poo'd for it by the neocon, war-minded people from the right, who only whine about the infallibility of the "constitution," when the situation suits them.

I remember when Ron Paul was boo'd at the GOP debates for telling the truth to the people who did not want to hear it.

I don't always agree with him. But I do admire him for standing his ground on principle and integrity even when it costs him popularity. His son could learn a thing or two from his father.
 
Kinda tough to celebrate rebellion in certain middle easter countries and then not celebrate it when it is inconvenient.

I think as analogies go, we can look closer to home. Suppose (just suppose) mejico decided it was time to annex the US. They already have 30 million or so illegal citizens plus well over 50 million legal immigrants. If mejico began stirring the pot, calling for all latinos to really consider joining the USA w/ mejico, there might be a fair amount of turmoil. Then, if mejico said "you know what...dont worry about the rest of the country...lets just see how California votes. We know in 2014 the latino population will become the majority race group in California. mejico floods in a few million more illegals just to be on the safe side and they hold a vote and voila...California has now voted to become the newest state in mejico. Immediately mejico sends in its military to reinforce the smooth transition to its new duly elected country. It would all be cool...right? Nice...legal...legit...
 
Kinda tough to celebrate rebellion in certain middle easter countries and then not celebrate it when it is inconvenient.

I think as analogies go, we can look closer to home. Suppose (just suppose) mejico decided it was time to annex the US. They already have 30 million or so illegal citizens plus well over 50 million legal immigrants. If mejico began stirring the pot, calling for all latinos to really consider joining the USA w/ mejico, there might be a fair amount of turmoil. Then, if mejico said "you know what...dont worry about the rest of the country...lets just see how California votes. We know in 2014 the latino population will become the majority race group in California. mejico floods in a few million more illegals just to be on the safe side and they hold a vote and voila...California has now voted to become the newest state in mejico. Immediately mejico sends in its military to reinforce the smooth transition to its new duly elected country. It would all be cool...right? Nice...legal...legit...

You forgot the part where Russia comes half way around the globe to intervene and prevent the Texas/California secession. I mean, technically, that's what the USA is doing, right?

Our forefathers, who fought and died for the right of self-determination and independence are rolling over in their graves right now.
 
It appears that, once again, Ron Paul is dead-nuts on in his opinions. At least, he is in my opinion.

I am sure he will get poo-poo'd for it by the neocon, war-minded people from the right, who only whine about the infallibility of the "constitution," when the situation suits them.

I remember when Ron Paul was boo'd at the GOP debates for telling the truth to the people who did not want to hear it.

I don't always agree with him. But I do admire him for standing his ground on principle and integrity even when it costs him popularity. His son could learn a thing or two from his father.

His son is representing one of those moronic right-wing tea-tard states where the people don't understand big words like "liberty", "capitalism", etc.

SO if he wants to stay in office, he'll have to ignore his father and instead do the monkey dance that appeals to the aforementioned voters. . .

"Prolife, nuke the arabs, deport the spics, kill all the fags, GUNS GUNS GUNS HELL YEAH!"
 
Back
Top Bottom