• 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!

Is Helping Ukraine a U.S. Imperative?

Simon Feltser

Simon Feltser

Banned
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Messages
202
Reaction score
80
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Events in Gaza, Iraq and Ukraine require a strategic approach by the US - the ability to defend American interests in different places at the same time (of course, because Obama is a self-proclaimed world's policeman).
William Perry - Minister of Defense in the Clinton administration - and George Shultz - Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan called on the administration of Barack Obama to provide military and economic assistance to Ukraine in the framework of "strategic approach", which will allow to protect interests of United States in the region
Perry and Schultz also believe that the United States should provide guarantees to the Baltic states, placing troops in these countries on a rotating basis...
William J. Perry and George P. Shultz: Helping Ukraine Is a U.S. Imperative - WSJ

We have growing of external debt, unemployment, domestic economy is in decline. And the government has remained true to its principles: to solve all its economic problems at the expense of other states. Ukraine at a strategic position in the heart of Europe, at the crossroads of trade routes between Russia and the EU...and people's lives and the fate of the whole country is not cost anything...
 
Simon Feltser said:
Events in Gaza, Iraq and Ukraine require a strategic approach by the US - the ability to defend American interests in different places at the same time (of course, because Obama is a self-proclaimed world's policeman).
William Perry - Minister of Defense in the Clinton administration - and George Shultz - Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan called on the administration of Barack Obama to provide military and economic assistance to Ukraine in the framework of "strategic approach", which will allow to protect interests of United States in the region
Perry and Schultz also believe that the United States should provide guarantees to the Baltic states, placing troops in these countries on a rotating basis...
William J. Perry and George P. Shultz: Helping Ukraine Is a U.S. Imperative - WSJ

We have growing of external debt, unemployment, domestic economy is in decline. And the government has remained true to its principles: to solve all its economic problems at the expense of other states. Ukraine at a strategic position in the heart of Europe, at the crossroads of trade routes between Russia and the EU...and people's lives and the fate of the whole country is not cost anything...
Click to expand...

What's good for the NWO, Central Bankers and Western Corporations is not necessarily good for Ukrainians, excepting the oligarchs that need a few more billions.
 
DaveFagan said:
What's good for the NWO, Central Bankers and Western Corporations is not necessarily good for Ukrainians, excepting the oligarchs that need a few more billions.
Click to expand...

Ukraine, as a failed state with a vast territory, corrupt elites, the close proximity to a richer than the American, European market, and the existing pipeline system is connected to the European, has provided our government a unique opportunity of salvation. Wars are the source of lifting USA...and it can not afflict, because we was such a strong and independent country...and I thought that was not due wars...
 
Simon Feltser said:
Events in Gaza, Iraq and Ukraine require a strategic approach by the US - the ability to defend American interests in different places at the same time (of course, because Obama is a self-proclaimed world's policeman).
William Perry - Minister of Defense in the Clinton administration - and George Shultz - Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan called on the administration of Barack Obama to provide military and economic assistance to Ukraine in the framework of "strategic approach", which will allow to protect interests of United States in the region
Perry and Schultz also believe that the United States should provide guarantees to the Baltic states, placing troops in these countries on a rotating basis...
William
J. Perry and George P. Shultz: Helping Ukraine Is a U.S. Imperative -
Click to expand...
 WSJ

We have growing of external debt, unemployment, domestic economy is in decline. And the government has remained true to its principles: to solve all its economic problems at the expense of other states. Ukraine at a strategic position in the heart of Europe, at the crossroads of trade routes between Russia and the EU...and people's lives and the fate of the whole country is not cost anything...
Click to expand...


The USA's #1 job is looking out for the USA and defending its interests.

Everything else is way less important.

No matter what some Neo-cons might think.
 
Simon Feltser said:
Ukraine, as a failed state with a vast territory, corrupt elites, the close proximity to a richer than the American, European market, and the existing pipeline system is connected to the European, has provided our government a unique opportunity of salvation. Wars are the source of lifting USA...and it can not afflict, because we was such a strong and independent country...and I thought that was not due wars...
Click to expand...

I'd guess that English is not your first language. I have tried to make sense of your statement, but to no avail. Perhaps my own comprehension shortcomings, perhaps not. We tried anyway. I understand the richness of the Euro market and also the bottleneck control of energy of the Ukrainian pipeline for those who attempt to control events by controlling energy. Wars have lifted the USA economy historically and are still the backbone of the USA Military/Industrial/Corporate Complex and think of that as a business, and a very big Capitalist/Corporatist business. The USA seems to have made a business of war. Now it wants to War with business as a weapon.
 
Simon Feltser said:
Ukraine, as a failed state with a vast territory, corrupt elites, the close proximity to a richer than the American, European market, and the existing pipeline system is connected to the European, has provided our government a unique opportunity of salvation. Wars are the source of lifting USA...and it can not afflict, because we was such a strong and independent country...and I thought that was not due wars...
Click to expand...

Wars do not lift the USA and nobody in a sane state of mind believes it. Wars are not even good for the rich excepting a relatively small number of them. The others do best, when the economies around the world grow unencumbered by wasted treasure and human resources. That is what makes money.
 
joG said:
Wars do not lift the USA and nobody in a sane state of mind believes it. Wars are not even good for the rich excepting a relatively small number of them. The others do best, when the economies around the world grow unencumbered by wasted treasure and human resources. That is what makes money.
Click to expand...
Historical experience shows that the war in Europe was the most important source of economic recovery and the political power of the US. We became a superstate in consequence of the First and Second World Wars, which caused a huge outflow of capital and minds from the warring European countries to America. The 3rd WW, which has remained cold, led to the collapse of the world socialist system, which gave the US the inflow of dollars, hundreds of thousands of professionals, tons of plutonium and other valuable materials, many unique technologies
 
Simon Feltser said:
Historical experience shows that the war in Europe was the most important source of economic recovery and the political power of the US. We became a superstate in consequence of the First and Second World Wars, which caused a huge outflow of capital and minds from the warring European countries to America. The 3rd WW, which has remained cold, led to the collapse of the world socialist system, which gave the US the inflow of dollars, hundreds of thousands of professionals, tons of plutonium and other valuable materials, many unique technologies
Click to expand...

In other words, the war was not uplifting, but destructive and others (USA) that joined the fray late profited.
 
DaveFagan said:
I'd guess that English is not your first language. I have tried to make sense of your statement, but to no avail. Perhaps my own comprehension shortcomings, perhaps not. We tried anyway. I understand the richness of the Euro market and also the bottleneck control of energy of the Ukrainian pipeline for those who attempt to control events by controlling energy. Wars have lifted the USA economy historically and are still the backbone of the USA Military/Industrial/Corporate Complex and think of that as a business, and a very big Capitalist/Corporatist business. The USA seems to have made a business of war. Now it wants to War with business as a weapon.
Click to expand...
`
My corrections (not necessarily grammatically perfect)

"Ukraine;

• as a failed state with a vast territory,
• corrupt elites,
• the close proximity to a (richer than the American) European market,
• and the existing pipeline system is connected to the European,

has provided our government a unique opportunity of salvation. Wars are the source of lifting USA...and it can not afflict, because we was such a strong and independent country...and I thought that was not due wars..."​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom