• 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!

What should Prez Obama do about Crimea?

What should the Prez do?

  • Send troops run Putin out of Crimea

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • dont send troops in use Diplomatic measures

    Votes: 18 94.7%
  • Total voters
    19
joko104 said:
Then we should not have signed a treaty otherwise.

What should stop is the pointless words about Iran to not obtaining nuclear weapons (or to any other country.) The USA is now known to be the land of liars who only make deals to scam countries into being set up for military invasion.

We convinced Hussein in Iraq to destroy his chemical and biological weapons - and then attacked and killed Hussein after he had.

We convinced Libya to give up its chemical and biological weapons program - and then attacked and killed the leader of that country after they had.

We convinced the Ukraine to give up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world - and then told Russia we will actually do nothing over any part of Ukraine that Russia wants.

Iran should consider any USA efforts to convince Iran to not obtain nuclear weapons as the USA declaring it intends to invade Iran and kill its leadership, only wanting make certain Iran has not dirty bombs or nuclear weapons before we do.

Pressuring a country to disarm itself is the USA actually announcing there are plans to invade the country.

I get tired of the trillions of words from politicians that have exactly no value whatsoever. ANY words about Iran and nuclear weapons are all totally worthless and essentially lies to claim something is being done with nothing is or can be done any more.

The future is of rapid worldwide nuclear weapons proliferation with every dictator, theocratic and military junta having their own mini nuclear arsenal. Within 50 years you'll probably be able to buy older models at garage sales.
Click to expand...

Pertinent words in the treaty:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine … to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

The only one to break the treaty was Russia.
 
MaggieD said:
Pertinent words in the treaty:



The only one to break the treaty was Russia.
Click to expand...

The treaty says more than that, but does not guarantee going to war on behalf Ukraine. Ukraine got punked.

While researching to find what the Treaty actually says, I found an article from January, this year, praising the wisdom of Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons. (Yeah, real smart).

Iran will not be so foolish. Nor it likely any other country will.
 
joko104 said:
The treaty says more than that, but does not guarantee going to war on behalf Ukraine. Ukraine got punked.

While researching to find what the Treaty actually says, I found an article from January, this year, praising the wisdom of Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons. (Yeah, real smart).

Iran will not be so foolish. Nor it likely any other country will.
Click to expand...
While countries like Iran and North Korea aren't as likely to be invaded as Ukraine was/is, for any reason, no doubt they will use Ukraine as a reason to not give in. And I can't say I'd blame them.
 
radcen said:
While countries like Iran and North Korea aren't as likely to be invaded as Ukraine was/is, for any reason, no doubt they will use Ukraine as a reason to not give in. And I can't say I'd blame them.
Click to expand...

North Korean is an run by a torturous, murderous totalitarian so there is nothing to be accomplished there anyway.

Iran would have to be absolutely nuts not to obtain nuclear weapons if they can.

I bet Argentina wished it had them in the Falklands war with the UK. My guess is the leader of Syria wishes he had half a dozen of them. It might be wise for Saudi Arabia and certainly Japan to ramp it up on nuclear weapons. I bet Yemen would spring for one if they could afford it.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
It's not our job to free Cuba or anyone else. If they really want to be free, they will free themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree. That was a tongue in cheek comment. We don't have to act like Russia in order to put a lid on their ambitions. We have innumerable options. It's a little frustrating that we choose to portray our proposed actions as either weak, or a military confrontation. Also the idea that if it isn't done immediately, whatever it is we do, we've lost all credibility in the world and with our allies. None of that is true, although, like with all good stories, there's an element of truth in all of it. If Europe is deeply concerned, well, they should be. It's on their doorstep. They're the ones that sold themselves out to Russian energy rather than develop various sources. The only thing about Crimea that concerns me is the Russian warm water port, and they have had that port for quite a while anyway.
 
joko104 said:
North Korean is an run by a torturous, murderous totalitarian so there is nothing to be accomplished there anyway.

Iran would have to be absolutely nuts not to obtain nuclear weapons if they can.

I bet Argentina wished it had them in the Falklands war with the UK. My guess is the leader of Syria wishes he had half a dozen of them. It might be wise for Saudi Arabia and certainly Japan to ramp it up on nuclear weapons. I bet Yemen would spring for one if they could afford it.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but when countries like us are guaranteeing things in exchange it makes it easier for them to shut us down by just saying, "Yeah? You mean like how you held up your end of the deal for Ukraine?"
 
yes their is nothing we can do ,,,and if we were there the citizens would not like it
 
Poll: What should the Prez do?

RESIGN ....

Easy peasy......

Thom Paine
 
joko104 said:
As people continue to support or oppose Obama along partisan lines, there is a very different reality unfolding unrelated to any actual issues.

President Obama, charismatic as he is, had exactly no leadership experience in his life - not in business, not with any organization, nor in politics. His advisors are idealistics, but also with no real world experience.

You may entirely believe with the philosophies and ideology of President Obama. Many people have lofty ideals. But it is coming down to the raw question of competency to carry out any goals, programs or ideals to any workable form, and an apparent lose of what to do on foreign policy matters lacking both any experience or knowledge himself, nor does his staff.

This is not only becoming a national and worldwide embarrassment to our county, it is increasingly causing real harms domestically and real dangers internationally. Where he previously was praised throughout the world and this nation for his lofty idealistic speeches, he is becoming seen as incompetent, indecisive and weak both at home and aboard by both the populous and foreign leaders.

The president is the leader of what still hangs on as the wealthiest country on earth and is commander of the unquestionable most powerful military on earth. Yet he is being openly ridiculed by world leaders.
Click to expand...

Well, to his credit he hasn't let his ego make rash decisions. He's fed his ego on the results of poor decisions, but I don't see him changing DEFCON because of a bruised ego.
 
MaggieD said:
France is a super power. You could have fooled me. I don't count either one. China (the new sleeping elephant), Russia and the U.S. That's my short list.
Click to expand...

Any nation with the capacity to annihilate the United States in nuclear hellfire, stage foreign interventions anywhere in the world, keep a permanent UN Security Council seat and direct the world's largest economy (some say even run it), is, to me, a great power.

My list reads: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
Any nation with the capacity to annihilate the United States in nuclear hellfire, stage foreign interventions anywhere in the world, keep a permanent UN Security Council seat and direct the world's largest economy (some say even run it), is, to me, a great power.

My list reads: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Don't see France. We'll just have to disagree.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I'm curious -- do you see the United Kingdom?
Click to expand...

In terms of "The World Stage," I suppose I do. But really? They're not in my mind. Here's something:

The terminology of a superpower is not clearly defined and as a consequence they may differ between sources. However, a fundamental characteristic that is consistent with all definitions of a superpower is a nation or state that has mastered the seven dimensions of state power; geography, population, economy, resources, military, diplomacy and national identity.
Click to expand...

I see the UK as lacking in geography, population, economy, resources and military. *shrug*
 
ChezC3 said:
Well, to his credit he hasn't let his ego make rash decisions. He's fed his ego on the results of poor decisions, but I don't see him changing DEFCON because of a bruised ego.
Click to expand...

DEFCON has nothing to do with it.

I gather your view also is the only thing police can do is either gun down a suspect or do nothing too.
 
joko104 said:
DEFCON has nothing to do with it.

I gather your view also is the only thing police can do is either gun down a suspect or do nothing too.
Click to expand...

No **** sherlock...I gather hyperbole is lost on you...
 
humbolt said:
I agree. That was a tongue in cheek comment. We don't have to act like Russia in order to put a lid on their ambitions. We have innumerable options. It's a little frustrating that we choose to portray our proposed actions as either weak, or a military confrontation. Also the idea that if it isn't done immediately, whatever it is we do, we've lost all credibility in the world and with our allies. None of that is true, although, like with all good stories, there's an element of truth in all of it. If Europe is deeply concerned, well, they should be. It's on their doorstep. They're the ones that sold themselves out to Russian energy rather than develop various sources. The only thing about Crimea that concerns me is the Russian warm water port, and they have had that port for quite a while anyway.
Click to expand...

They're welcome to have whatever ambitions they want to have, just like we are. Nobody in America ever stopped to think that maybe Russia (or China or anyone else) didn't like what we were doing. We probably should have, we've spent the last 50 years being dicks worldwide, but our leadership just did what they did, thinking we had a right to do it. So why is it suddenly different for everyone but us? Who died and elected us savior and protector of the planet? Nobody but that didn't stop us from pretending that we're special. I don't see Crimea coming to the U.S. or the UN asking to be protected from Russia, do you? So where is it our business what happens to them? If they want our help, they can ask for it and they can pay for it. The U.S. taxpayer has no obligation to pay for more dick-waving on the other side of the planet.
 
joko104 said:
North Korean is an run by a torturous, murderous totalitarian so there is nothing to be accomplished there anyway.
Click to expand...

Yup and they *WANT* to be. Who are we to tell them that they can't bow down to whoever they want to? Apparently, there are a lot of Americans that think we get to make all the decisions worldwide.

Iran would have to be absolutely nuts not to obtain nuclear weapons if they can.

I bet Argentina wished it had them in the Falklands war with the UK. My guess is the leader of Syria wishes he had half a dozen of them. It might be wise for Saudi Arabia and certainly Japan to ramp it up on nuclear weapons. I bet Yemen would spring for one if they could afford it.
Click to expand...

Mostly to protect themselves from us. If Iraq or Afghanistan had had nukes, we never would have invaded. We don't go to war with anyone who can fight back.
 
radcen said:
Hell - oooo, President Biden.
Click to expand...

Obviously, my 'resignation' reply was a smart-ass tongue in cheek response. ;) ... now, seriously, he needs to be still and mind the matters of the U.S. He and his advisers seem unaware of Geo-politics... not stupid but uniformed long term view..

Ol' Joe would probably be better as Pres.. at least in this situation for he would most likely have better, more experienced staff and Cab.

Jus' thinkin' maybe

Thom Paine
 
most of the people in ukraine may not want american troops there i think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom