• 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!

Obama Rules Out 'military excursion' in Ukraine.....

Unitedwestand13 said:
Tell me how can garentee ukraines sovereignty without suffering the entire region going up in flames?
Click to expand...

LOL! You think "the entire region going up in flames" HELPS Russia? Its their border, not ours. Eastern Europe turns into a collection of Afghanistans and en thnic chaos. That'd really help out white Russians a whole lot, huh? For the next 2 decades Putin could keep telling Russians that there are whole lot more non-Russian body bags than there are Russian body bags.

I rather certain Russia would not like it if "the entire region" goes "up in flames." Doesn't leave much for them to try to get but chaos, ruin, expense and death, does it? You always seem to have the risk factors exactly backwards.

If Russia could make Mexico and Canada "go up in flames" does that help the USA and harm Russia? That seems to be how you think it works. Exactly opposite from reality.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Hi MMC - yes, Russia is in position now to stretch the boundaries of acceptible behaviour since no one seems to be able to stop him so far. I do think, however, that Estonia and other places with ethnic Russians may be a bridge too far in that the NATO alliance defense treaties kick in and I'm not sure even Putin wants to tempt that fate. While there's no harm evident to the citizens of Russia, they will support Putin in these kinds of moves - if it comes to imminent war, I think Putin would be deposed by those around him before it got that far.
Click to expand...

Other than the USA, NATO is a bunch of wimps. "NATO" means the USA acting - after obtaining the other country's permission. But for nuclear weapons, even the greatly reduced Russian military could run over Europe faster than Germany did. Only the USA could defeat Russia in a conventional war.
 
apdst said:
Thats why, when you're a leader, people have to believe you're going to follow through with your threats. Unfortunately, we don't have a leader for a president; we have a community organizer.
Click to expand...

It seems he doesn't have organizing skills either.
 
apdst said:
Of course it's not a good idea, but, you don't tell the Russians that military force is, flat out, not an option. That's going to encourage then.
Click to expand...

Because Russia was too dumb to figure that out on their own?
 
If Obama made a military threat against Russia most people here would be jumping all over him for not having enough spine to follow through, if he doesn't make a military threat then he's just weak.

He's simply stating the obvious, Russia knows they aren't about to enter a war with the US and pretending that we may actually use military force would be just plain silly.

Economics and diplomacy is whats going to beat back Russia, not military threats.
 
I'm not advocating military action and have gone on record from the very beginning (actually way before this even started) that Russia was not done with it plans of retaking the satellites back, eventually. Let's face it, if your Putin what better president to do that under than Obama? That said, I do not support war with Russia, but consider this approach. Putin has made many insinuations regarding military force and use in Crimea. All Obama had to do was match that rhetoric, but be prepared to follow through with at least building up. When two powers square off directly like this (In the last 50 years we've mostly fought each other through proxy wars) history tells us that there is usually a build up and then a cooling off phase. Both leaders piss on each other but then stop to wipe it off. When they stop, they start to really think about the consequences of taking serious action. Generally a third party or some other entity offers both a way out where both can look like winners, and the matter begins to die down.

I'm not sure how Obama can look like a winner here, he's already lost cred so many times, and including this incident that no one really fears him. The matching strategy outlined above would have needed to happen right from the get-go, NOT a month into it, when Russia now has Crimea, and all Obama can muster is sanctioning 11 officials and not inviting Putin to his G7 party.. Obama could have used this appear weak strategy in his best interests with regard to Iran, and Russian sanctions, and support. Make a back room deal that we'll bluster in the media about how bad you dastardly Russians are, but secretly you'll back us on Iran. Deal? Cool, let's go get a beer. Wouldn't be the first time we made deals like this to stay out of a war but gain something in return..


Whoever is advising the President isn't very adept at analyzing all the available options that gives America an advantage. I'd take any positive news on Ukraine at this point, but sadly we have a really crappy leader and terribly inept tactician.

Tim-
 
Deuce said:
Because Russia was too dumb to figure that out on their own?
Click to expand...

Putting troops in Ukraine absolutely was an option.
 
Hicup said:
I'm not advocating military action and have gone on record from the very beginning (actually way before this even started) that Russia was not done with it plans of retaking the satellites back, eventually. Let's face it, if your Putin what better president to do that under than Obama? That said, I do not support war with Russia, but consider this approach. Putin has made many insinuations regarding military force and use in Crimea. All Obama had to do was match that rhetoric, but be prepared to follow through with at least building up. When two powers square off directly like this (In the last 50 years we've mostly fought each other through proxy wars) history tells us that there is usually a build up and then a cooling off phase. Both leaders piss on each other but then stop to wipe it off. When they stop, they start to really think about the consequences of taking serious action. Generally a third party or some other entity offers both a way out where both can look like winners, and the matter begins to die down.

I'm not sure how Obama can look like a winner here, he's already lost cred so many times, and including this incident that no one really fears him. The matching strategy outlined above would have needed to happen right from the get-go, NOT a month into it, when Russia now has Crimea, and all Obama can muster is sanctioning 11 officials and not inviting Putin to his G7 party.. Obama could have used this appear weak strategy in his best interests with regard to Iran, and Russian sanctions, and support. Make a back room deal that we'll bluster in the media about how bad you dastardly Russians are, but secretly you'll back us on Iran. Deal? Cool, let's go get a beer. Wouldn't be the first time we made deals like this to stay out of a war but gain something in return..


Whoever is advising the President isn't very adept at analyzing all the available options that gives America an advantage. I'd take any positive news on Ukraine at this point, but sadly we have a really crappy leader and terribly inept tactician.

Tim-
Click to expand...

THERE IS NO DEAL TO MAKE ABOUT IRAN. NONE, ZERO. NADA.

Ukraine just learned that Russia and the USA work to get a country to disarm itself as part of a longer range plan to invade the country and depose/kill its leaders.

ANY talk of "deals" about IRAN ended this month - permanently. Iran will become a nuclear weapons power. Quickly.
 
Wiseone said:
If Obama made a military threat against Russia most people here would be jumping all over him for not having enough spine to follow through, if he doesn't make a military threat then he's just weak.

He's simply stating the obvious, Russia knows they aren't about to enter a war with the US and pretending that we may actually use military force would be just plain silly.

Economics and diplomacy is whats going to beat back Russia, not military threats.
Click to expand...

10 years from now, Russia will still control Crimea.
 
joko104 said:
THERE IS NO DEAL TO MAKE ABOUT IRAN. NONE, ZERO. NADA.

Ukraine just learned that Russia and the USA work to get a country to disarm itself as part of a longer range plan to invade the country and depose/kill its leaders.

ANY talk of "deals" about IRAN ended this month - permanently. Iran will become a nuclear weapons power. Quickly.
Click to expand...

Sadly I fear this might be true..

Crimea that Russian Satrapy. ;)

Tim-
 
mak2 said:
I dont think we should go to war with Russia. Even thought it is Obama and everything he does in wrong, even the right doesnt beleive a war with Russia is a good idea. Do they?
Click to expand...


Only a crazy person would want war with Russia. The thing to ask ourselves, though, is whether Putin is crazy enough to want war with us? Probably not, but there is a disturbing surge of nationalism going on there now, so who knows for sure. I think if you see him go into eastern Ukraine, you can assume that he is a man that doesn't care much to be peaceful.

I do think Obama is acting in the right way. Beats me why he would say that military action is off the table in public, though. That's like showing your opponent that you only have a pair of twos when they have two pair before you've placed a bet. I also would have liked to see a more rapid and expansive approach to sanctions. Admittedly, the hesitation of the EU might be a factor in coordinating that kind of response quickly though. I get the impression based on our response so far that this administration hasn't yet embraced what I believe to be a naked fact, which is that Russia is playing hardball for keeps as it attempts to re-establish it's dominance over former satellite states, it isn't far from discarding it's facade of democracy, and won't stop short of brinksmanship.
 
Wiseone said:
If Obama made a military threat against Russia most people here would be jumping all over him for not having enough spine to follow through, if he doesn't make a military threat then he's just weak.

He's simply stating the obvious, Russia knows they aren't about to enter a war with the US and pretending that we may actually use military force would be just plain silly.

Economics and diplomacy is whats going to beat back Russia, not military threats.
Click to expand...

Did economics and diplomacy beat back the Japanese?
 
apdst said:
Yoi believe Obama is acting logical? :lamo
Click to expand...

Very much so. He is applying pressure to Putin in the only logical way possible. You cannot possibly do any better.
 
joko104 said:
Other than the USA, NATO is a bunch of wimps. "NATO" means the USA acting - after obtaining the other country's permission. But for nuclear weapons, even the greatly reduced Russian military could run over Europe faster than Germany did. Only the USA could defeat Russia in a conventional war.
Click to expand...

And that's why we have nuclear weapons so stupid **** like that will never happen again. Retro is cool but not when it comes to war.
How many wars do we have to lose before we realize they are futile and out of date?
 
SBu said:
Only a crazy person would want war with Russia. The thing to ask ourselves, though, is whether Putin is crazy enough to want war with us? Probably not, but there is a disturbing surge of nationalism going on there now, so who knows for sure. I think if you see him go into eastern Ukraine, you can assume that he is a man that doesn't care much to be peaceful.

I do think Obama is acting in the right way. Beats me why he would say that military action is off the table in public, though. That's like showing your opponent that you only have a pair of twos when they have two pair before you've placed a bet. I also would have liked to see a more rapid and expansive approach to sanctions. Admittedly, the hesitation of the EU might be a factor in coordinating that kind of response quickly though. I get the impression based on our response so far that this administration hasn't yet embraced what I believe to be a naked fact, which is that Russia is playing hardball for keeps as it attempts to re-establish it's dominance over former satellite states, it isn't far from discarding it's facade of democracy, and won't stop short of brinksmanship.
Click to expand...

Obama has the launch codes with him where ever he goes. That option is never off the table and Putin knows it. The EU needs to step up if tougher sanctions are required but it takes time for that "union" to truly act as one. I am confident they will do what's right in the end though.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Fair enough - but then you're Canadian and as a result a much more pragmatic libertarian.
Click to expand...


It would appear to me that the so-called 'libertarian' ideal in the US has been hijacked by the social democrats, or "progressives". What we in Canada call Nothing Doing Politically, the tired old coalition of feminists, environmentalists, and a cadre of other 'ists', the poverty pimps and academics who have to figure out how to be poverty pimps.

That is not libertarianism but an academic exercise, a kind of grotesque political correctness that can somehow protect individual freedoms by creating a massively impossible long gun registry when the real problem was detecting and treating personality disorders; Canadian gun owners are the most responsible in the world, the "solution" has already been found, safe rooms, trigger guards, licensing to the point we have less gun related deaths per capita than Singapore.

The libertarian will always err to freedoms; both progressives and conservatives see problems within everything and try to legislate against them, progressives want to change people by banning the sale of "harmful" things like bottled water, conservatives want to make it impossible for anyone to access the social safety net in case someone might try to cheat it.

The libertarian says STFU and let people drink whatever water they want, pay the ****ing money, and if you make it so damn hard to access the social safety net, then pay the money for advocates, which is the end result of what Harper has now foisted on this country, the more costly solution. But, that has nothing to do with conservatism, but an ideologically exhausted government sensing a sea change and appealing to its base with optics instead of the common sense Harper gave us eight years ago.
 
iguanaman said:
Obama has the launch codes with him where ever he goes. That option is never off the table and Putin knows it. The EU needs to step up if tougher sanctions are required but it takes time for that "union" to truly act as one. I am confident they will do what's right in the end though.
Click to expand...


LOL...


Nuke option...no over reaction there....
 
Gee, I wonder why.
 
apdst said:
Did economics and diplomacy beat back the Japanese?
Click to expand...

Ahhhh another useless CON reference to WWII... :doh

Did the USofA use military force when the Japanese invaded Korea? Do you think we should have?

Did the USofA use military force when the Japanese invaded China? Do you think we should have?

When did the USofA use military force? When American lives and property were taken.

What military force do you think we should be using now?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I always find it amusing to watch Republicans talk about how badly Obama is handling it...and then saying they wouldn't do anything substantially different.

The world of sound bites can be a sad sad place sometimes.
Click to expand...

Declare war now, send only democrats armed with Obama care policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom