- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Yeah? Or else what?U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia
Yeah? Or else what?U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia
Your right, China also has a very powerful military. They and Russia received a lot of U.S. military secrets they obtained from the spy Jonathon Pollard, who stole enough secrets to fill a walk in closet.
Don't blame US companies.
Who would buy them?
While I agree China and Russia are both dangerous, let us not forget that their economies are both rather feeble behind the curtain. If all else failed, denying Russia the ability to sell its oil and gas would strangle it. China is not really interested in global domination, it is concerned more about shoring up it's surroundings to insulate itself from outsiders.
Globalization has brought with it cheap goods and economic interdependence and these things make us all vulnerable. It has proven to be the achilles heel of the US in foreign policy. US companies sought to maximize profits through cheap labor and production costs by going to China, and in the end succeeded in making the US economy weak enough that we now cannot effectively act as the world's lone superpower.
I love these U.S. "warnings" to Russia, and now CHINA! Let me make this clear. China could bomb Pearl Harbor and Obama would go to the U.N. and other "international bodies" to resolve the issue. I think you can give a rest with all the warnings. It's just making Obama(and by extension us) look foolish at this point.
Here's another reason why it was a bad idea to have been over aggressive in the UKraine with regards to Yanukovych rejecting the EU deal. That's something we should have left for the Europeans to do. It appears that we have opened a can of worms. Do we really want to go to war with China too over some small islands that the Japanese claim? It's time for a serious rethink of our foreign policy.
U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia
I love these U.S. "warnings" to Russia, and now CHINA! Let me make this clear. China could bomb Pearl Harbor and Obama would go to the U.N. and other "international bodies" to resolve the issue. I think you can give a rest with all the warnings. It's just making Obama(and by extension us) look foolish at this point.
Here's another reason why it was a bad idea to have been over aggressive in the UKraine with regards to Yanukovych rejecting the EU deal. That's something we should have left for the Europeans to do. It appears that we have opened a can of worms. Do we really want to go to war with China too over some small islands that the Japanese claim? It's time for a serious rethink of our foreign policy.
U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia
Actually the US did leave the Crimea issue to the EU and more or less only supported its allies. It only issued warnings to back up the Europeans in spite of the flawed and stumbling approach they had taken.
Mumbled threats are something the world has come to expect from The Man That Can and is paying increasingly less attention to. That is one of the problems we are seeing. Obama is not taken all together seriously, so US backing did not suffice to neutralize the European blunder.
In Asia this could easily cause disaster.
The EU is useless and are only respected by cocky nations who have absolutely zero reasons for conflict..
The EU is all talk and no push...... The EU is a joke.
I suspect you meant Edward Snowden, not Jonathan Pollard. Pollard gave classified information to Israel. Snowden very likely provided the information he took from the NSA to China and Russia.
Actually the US did leave the Crimea issue to the EU and more or less only supported its allies. It only issued warnings to back up the Europeans in spite of the flawed and stumbling approach they had taken.
Mumbled threats are something the world has come to expect from The Man That Can and is paying increasingly less attention to. That is one of the problems we are seeing. Obama is not taken all together seriously, so US backing did not suffice to neutralize the European blunder.
In Asia this could easily cause disaster.
The United States is too valuable to China so that would never happen - not to mention China and Russia aren't exactly "buddies" either.
If Russia was to attack the US China would beat Russia into snot bubbles..
Russia is **** to China and China understands that Russia is being an aggressor at this point in time.
Obama is an epic idiot - If I was in his shoes I would tell China to deal with their little lap dog.
And if worst came to worst I would tell Putin that I would destroy his resources if he did not stop the aggression.
My point is that Ukraine is only a part of marginal US interests. It is more of a direct interest of the EU Therefore we should have let the Europeans figure out how they wanted to respond to Yanukovych's rejection of the EU association agreement. Instead we got involved in the protests, and directly threatened Yanukovych and other financial and political interests in Ukraine that set the stage for the collapse of the government. It was an extremely bad strategic move because for the sake of a minor, marginal interest, we increased the instability of the Ukraine and set back relations with Russia, a major world power, with whom our relations are a strong interest. The Russian annexation of Crimea should have been an anticipated response to the collapse of the Ukrainian government, and therefore was simply not worth the risk.
The US should work with Europe to restart the Missile Defense Shield in Poland....
My understanding was that the US did let the EU act as they wanted, did not pressure them and only followed their lead, when the damage they were causing American interests were not excessive.
What happened is that the government of Ukraine, under Yanukovych, was offered an association agreement with the EU. Actually it's a long story and had been years in the making. Back in November of last year, they were right at the point where the agreement was to be signed with the EU. But, Yanukovych backed out at the last minute, essentially scuttling years of work. At that point, the Secretary of the United States, Victoria Nuland started to exert very strong pressure on Yanukovych, She went to Ukraine to meet with Yanukovych. Right before the meeting she went out and passed out food to the people who were protesting against Yanukovych. Then she went to the meeting and directly threatened Yanukovych. Next she went to a very powerful oligarch in the Ukraine by the name of Akmetov, and threatened to expose his business dealings if he didn't exert pressure on Yanukovych. All of these things help to cause the collapse of the government of Yanukovych and he had to flee the Ukraine. My point is that as Ukraine is only a marginal US interest, there was no need to for us to exert such strong pressure and cause the government to collapse which resulted in the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
Here's another reason why it was a bad idea to have been over aggressive in the UKraine with regards to Yanukovych rejecting the EU deal. That's something we should have left for the Europeans to do. It appears that we have opened a can of worms. Do we really want to go to war with China too over some small islands that the Japanese claim? It's time for a serious rethink of our foreign policy.
I followed all that back to the debate abour joining Nato and later the beginnings of the negotiations for an association agreement. What you left out is the fact that it was obvious that the Russians would react to the pressure on Ukraine to enter the treaty. They would not have done so with the threat of today, had the EU acted quickly after unification. But now the provocation was obviously a very risky affair and that the EU was playing a game way outside its depths. The Federation call the bluff the EU admitted it didn't see.
Why should the USA accept their responsibility for the mess?
They would not have done so with the threat of today, had the EU acted quickly after unification.
Does the US have a foreign policy? If so, what is it?
U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia
That's a good question. Perhaps you could ask your good friend the president!!!!