View Poll Results: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • NATO

    18 23.68%
  • UN

    7 9.21%
  • EU

    10 13.16%
  • USA

    11 14.47%
  • Russia

    10 13.16%
  • Ukraine

    9 11.84%
  • Nobody

    33 43.42%
  • Santa / Ded Moroz

    3 3.95%
  • Other

    3 3.95%
  • None of my business

    11 14.47%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 101

Thread: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

  1. #61
    User Politicalunrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 11:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    89
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Their Constitution requires an impeachment be approved by the Constitutional Court. This has not happened, so he remains the legitimate leader of the country. We shouldn't support a blatant violation of the seperation of powers, it's un-democratic.



    1) Failure to extradite is not legitimate grounds for invading another country, unless you think the central powers were justified in WWI.

    2) If the morality of a government is a measure of whether or not an invasion is justified, we lose on account of our murder of 5000 unborn people every day.

    3) How is Russia trying to annex land?
    I am actually really glad you brought all of this up.

    Lets say your right and that he would still by their constitution, be considered their president. the president does not have the power via their constitution to invite foreign powers military into their boarders, so he is guilty of treason. Also he has basically stepped down from his position in favor of being a member of an illegitimate government set up by a foreign power. So of his own volition he is no longer a member of their formal government, regardless of weather the parliament can remove him without the constitutional court.

    Second he is guilty of mass murder... this action by its self makes him an illegitimate leader by Democratic and Liberal standards.


    Third, russia has annexed land from GEORGIA... or did you miss that? its a de facto annexation, so its not official... but it is there. Then there is russia's actions in regards to the Ukraine... sending additional troops, flying helicopter patrols over unapproved( Via the lease agreement they have) land, and by sending unmarked fully armed and trained russian troops onto a foreign national and sovereign soil in an attempt to set up a puppet government because they didn't like how the parliament had removed their former puppet from power, pending a constitutional court decision(This whole PENDING part is the constitutional question).

    As for the constitutional power that the parliament has in Ukraine, it is highly debated weather the parliament can temporarily remove someone who is charged with these crimes from power until a constitutional court decision. its about a 5050 split in the countries rather short constitutional history.
    Always remember... God Loves you.

    Good Luck

  2. #62
    User Politicalunrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 11:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    89
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I would LOVE to see the UN engage.
    sadly the UN will do nothing because russia has veto power in the security council.
    Always remember... God Loves you.

    Good Luck

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Politicalunrest View Post
    I am actually really glad you brought all of this up.

    Lets say your right and that he would still by their constitution, be considered their president. the president does not have the power via their constitution to invite foreign powers military into their boarders, so he is guilty of treason. Also he has basically stepped down from his position in favor of being a member of an illegitimate government set up by a foreign power. So of his own volition he is no longer a member of their formal government, regardless of weather the parliament can remove him without the constitutional court.

    Second he is guilty of mass murder... this action by its self makes him an illegitimate leader by Democratic and Liberal standards.


    Third, russia has annexed land from GEORGIA... or did you miss that? its a de facto annexation, so its not official... but it is there. Then there is russia's actions in regards to the Ukraine... sending additional troops, flying helicopter patrols over unapproved( Via the lease agreement they have) land, and by sending unmarked fully armed and trained russian troops onto a foreign national and sovereign soil in an attempt to set up a puppet government because they didn't like how the parliament had removed their former puppet from power, pending a constitutional court decision(This whole PENDING part is the constitutional question).

    As for the constitutional power that the parliament has in Ukraine, it is highly debated weather the parliament can temporarily remove someone who is charged with these crimes from power until a constitutional court decision. its about a 5050 split in the countries rather short constitutional history.
    Who would have the authority to authorize foreign troops? (seriously who)? He has not resigned.

    He is not guilty of mass murder, although even if he was, the Ukrainian Comstitution doesn't recognize violation of vague "democratic and liberal standards" as automatic removal. BTW, you're profile says you're a Conservative.

    I don't agree with their actions in Georgia, but that doesn't make it an annexation

    What possible basis is their for early removal pending a decision. There's no more basis for that then their is for the US House being able to remove a Presdient pending the decision of the Senate.

  4. #64
    Live, Love, Laugh.
    SayMyName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Taizhou, China
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Politicalunrest View Post
    I honestly dont know if anything could be done at this point. The only thing that we could have reasonably relied upon was MAD to stop another super power provoking and attacking its smaller neighbors, but with the way our leadership currently is in the USA, i don't think Putin is really afraid of them. I think HE doesn't think that our leaders have the gumption to actually back up any threats.

    it will take another president to take control, if the USA were to get involved. as it is now, i think maybe NATO as a whole, or the EU might be able to threaten something that will get russia to back off.... i dont know what... but maybe.
    Fair enough and deeply felt. This is why I would ask that we wait. Showing alarm is not going to play our hand well. We have many options, and regardless my political affiliations and leanings, the President is being advised. The men at the top, no matter what we want to think of them personally, are not as ignorant as we would like to paint them out to be. The United States has mastered the international stage of political stealth and intrigue. We have so many cards in our hands, and if we share a little of the spoils here and there, raising a fuss for the roar of this or that crowd, it is for our own nations benefit. We must be patient, knowing we can not intervene with the force of armies ready to lock horns in in titanic struggle on another Eastern Front with the Russians. It would destroy our nation as we know it, and thus the reason why our leaders would never contemplate this move. The new reductions in force are actually movements to different arenas of concern where consultations have been made with the Council of Foreign Relations and many others. We too are learning to think for a longer term, and the future is not an archaic struggle of men in a common trench, but in space, outer or cyber, special forces, and finance. We must guard these strengths closely and use them as the valuable tools that they are to contain future aggression, never letting others dictate how and where we will meet them on the battlefield. We must invite all to be patient, trust in our leaders that are advising the President, and show no fear.

    We must assume the most dangerous of defensive positions, "Wind." As Sensei Stephen K. Hayes would write in his book of 1980, "Ninja: Spirit of the Shadow Warrior."
    Last edited by SayMyName; 03-03-14 at 12:32 PM.

  5. #65
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by SayMyName View Post
    The men at the top, no matter what we want to think of them personally, are not as ignorant as we would like to paint them out to be.
    I'm not at all attacking you, so if I come off that way, it's just a matter communication and not intent: but the idea that top policy-makers in most countries are ignorant is such a dumb, populist view. I understand you're not espousing that view and are in fact fighting against, but in my opinion it needs to be hammered home. That a bunch of people on an internet forum could call (or insinuate) policy-makers dumb is just so laughable.

    A group of people mostly with bachelor degrees at best (mostly not in any pertinent major anyway) and mostly with no professional experience in anything like this sitting around critiquing the knowledge and judgment of people with master's and doctorates in international relations/national security/et al, most with at least a decade plus of professional experience...it just boggles the mind. If not here at DP, somewhere out there there's a plumber with a GED bemoaning how "stupid" the Obama or Bush Administrations are/were on the international stage and it makes milk shoot out of my nose.

    /end rant
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  6. #66
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    You just want to see that inevitable train wreck ... evil evil!
    Was it THAT transparent???

  7. #67
    User Politicalunrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 11:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    89
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Who would have the authority to authorize foreign troops? (seriously who)? He has not resigned.

    He is not guilty of mass murder, although even if he was, the Ukrainian Comstitution doesn't recognize violation of vague "democratic and liberal standards" as automatic removal. BTW, you're profile says you're a Conservative.

    I don't agree with their actions in Georgia, but that doesn't make it an annexation

    What possible basis is their for early removal pending a decision. There's no more basis for that then their is for the US House being able to remove a Presdient pending the decision of the Senate.
    .... realy? do you not know that a conservative on the international stage is called a "Classical Liberal"? generally the term is associated with the United States in general, while Socialist Democracy is associated with Europe. Just a short Political Science lesson for you...

    A constitutional rule in their country and in almost every democracy around the world, is that someone in a high seat of power can not maintain two political offices. For instance a president of the USA cant also be the Prime Minister of Great Britain.... he has accepted a position as the Prime Minister of the new Autonomous Republic of Crosia last i read, and is now trying to take power from the Ukrainian parliament.

    Besides if you know anything about how parliamentary systems work, parliament is sovereign. they can do what ever the hell they want including amending the constitution. parliament is the embodiment of the peoples will and can change how the government is set up however they dam well please. Constitutions are generally seen as guidelines in a Unitary Parliamentary system when it comes to operation of government, which is i believe what Ukraine has. Constitutions however are seen as very strict when it comes to individual rights. its a tricky balancing act that that type of government messes with, but its what they do.

    LEts say the USA goes into mexico and decides all of the california peninsula is now a new country, the USA controls its leaders, its politics, and everything else about it... it is DE FACTO annexed by the USA, but it is not actually annexed.

    Do you know what De Facto means? it means in reality, rather then in theory. in theory those two georgian regions are now either their own states, or part of georgia still. De Facto however they are part of russia.
    Always remember... God Loves you.

    Good Luck

  8. #68
    User Politicalunrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 11:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    89
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by SayMyName View Post
    Fair enough and deeply felt. This is why I would ask that we wait. Showing alarm is not going to play our hand well. We have many options, and regardless my political affiliations and leanings, the President is being advised. The men at the top, no matter what we want to think of them personally, are not as ignorant as we would like to paint them out to be. The United States has mastered the international stage of political stealth and intrigue. We have so many cards in our hands, and if we share a little of the spoils here and there, raising a fuss for the roar of this or that crowd, it is for our own nations benefit. We must be patient, knowing we can not intervene with the force of armies ready to lock horns in in titanic struggle on another Eastern Front with the Russians. It would destroy our nation as we know it, and thus the reason why our leaders would never contemplate this move. The new reductions in force are actually movements to different arenas of concern where consultations have been made with the Council of Foreign Relations and many others. We too are learning to think for a longer term, and the future is not an archaic struggle of men in a common trench, but in space, outer or cyber, special forces, and finance. We must guard these strengths closely and use them as the valuable tools that they are to contain future aggression, never letting others dictate how and where we will meet them on the battlefield. We must invite all to be patient, trust in our leaders that are advising the President, and show no fear.

    We must assume the most dangerous of defensive positions, "Wind." As Sensei Stephen K. Hayes would write in his book of 1980, "Ninja: Spirit of the Shadow Warrior."

    I have to admit.. never read that book though it sounds very interesting. I have read a few books on eastern combat and political/ military strategy, just not that one. However one thing i think you miss about American politics in general, and this is not a criticism of you but in general people from other nations, is that we are very loud, and very very very suspicious of government. But when it comes to a crisis as long as their is strong, open leadership on the issue we tend to come together. that is when we do our best. Unfortunately most americans, my self included feel we would be better served with a Clinton in office then Obama. I don't believe he has the "backbone" or "thick skin" needed to win this kind of cloak and dagger, game of thrones kind of stuff.

    we also like our metaphors.... sorry about that.
    Always remember... God Loves you.

    Good Luck

  9. #69
    User Politicalunrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 11:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    89
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Sorry just finished reading your profile... if i understand it correct you are former US military? or former Swedish military?
    Always remember... God Loves you.

    Good Luck

  10. #70
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,431

    Re: Who should send troops in Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Politicalunrest View Post
    I am actually really glad you brought all of this up.

    Lets say your right and that he would still by their constitution, be considered their president. the president does not have the power via their constitution to invite foreign powers military into their boarders, so he is guilty of treason. Also he has basically stepped down from his position in favor of being a member of an illegitimate government set up by a foreign power. So of his own volition he is no longer a member of their formal government, regardless of weather the parliament can remove him without the constitutional court.

    Second he is guilty of mass murder... this action by its self makes him an illegitimate leader by Democratic and Liberal standards.


    Third, russia has annexed land from GEORGIA... or did you miss that? its a de facto annexation, so its not official... but it is there. Then there is russia's actions in regards to the Ukraine... sending additional troops, flying helicopter patrols over unapproved( Via the lease agreement they have) land, and by sending unmarked fully armed and trained russian troops onto a foreign national and sovereign soil in an attempt to set up a puppet government because they didn't like how the parliament had removed their former puppet from power, pending a constitutional court decision(This whole PENDING part is the constitutional question).As for the constitutional power that the parliament has in Ukraine, it is highly debated weather the parliament can temporarily remove someone who is charged with these crimes from power until a constitutional court decision. its about a 5050 split in the countries rather short constitutional history.
    Re Georgia

    Georgia decideded to attack South Ossetia which has been in effect an autonomus region from the early 1990s. A was was fought by Georgian and South Ossetian forces back then, South Ossetia won. When Georgia decided to attack South Ossetia, Russia stepped in, stopped the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, and then destroyed a significant amount of Georgian military equipment. Then it pulled back to the boarders of South Ossetia and the other autonomus region (perhaps a 100 meters further out in some cases.


    Had Georgia not decided to attack South Ossetia, the Russian counter attack would never have occurred. Overall Georgia did not lose any territory that it did not lose back in the 1990's
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •