• 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!

Russia Moves to Deploy Troops in Ukraine

So far, no one's been able to explain to me what Obama could have done to avert Putin's move into the Ukraine. Can you?
Wearing a large belt buckle. Cutting down brush with a chainsaw. Marlboro man stuff.
 
BS - then explain why Russia felt free to "invade" Georgia while "cowboy" Bush was busy spending billions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Russia will do pretty much whatever it wants, just as the U.S. does, as that is what superpowers do. After all, China (with its stellar human rights record) now enjoys most favorable nation status for trade with us.

"cowboy Bush" was a liberal slur that I am surprised you are repeating. Bush was a very weak president and that was one of the reasons cons didn't like him and why his poll numbers were so low.
 
A couple of days ago I saw a tweet by a celebrity that, paraphrased, said that Obama's statement about the Ukraine was either a stern warning to Putin or just a wish that we all had a nice weekend. Obama is hopelessly over his head in foreign policy because he doesn't understand the appearance of force in political relationships. To have power you have to look resolute with your allies and strong to your enemies. Obama is content to use drones as our primary military force because at home he gets good headlines and there is no downside because no troops are harmed. He only cares about domestic politics. If he was as good at leading as he is appearing to lead we'd have one hell of a president. Sadly, this is far from the case.
 
Because Mexico doesn't harbor a cult who's members engage in acts of terrorism all over the world, nor is it governed by a man engaging in genocide and amassing WMDs.

But we did EXACTlY what you said to TWO middle eastern nations already.

Did we seek Putin's permission to do so?


You are comparing Iraq and Afghanistan to what Russia- Putin is doing?
 
Putin would not do this because he would know it would be just the excuse a strong pres in the USA is looking for to build up our military instead of tear it down as obama is doing.

What does Russia care of our military might?
 
A couple of days ago I saw a tweet by a celebrity that, paraphrased, said that Obama's statement about the Ukraine was either a stern warning to Putin or just a wish that we all had a nice weekend. Obama is hopelessly over his head in foreign policy because he doesn't understand the appearance of force in political relationships. To have power you have to look resolute with your allies and strong to your enemies. Obama is content to use drones as our primary military force because at home he gets good headlines and there is no downside because no troops are harmed. He only cares about domestic politics. If he was as good at leading as he is appearing to lead we'd have one hell of a president. Sadly, this is far from the case.


My point exactly but you expressed it better than me.
 
"cowboy Bush" was a liberal slur that I am surprised you are repeating. Bush was a very weak president and that was one of the reasons cons didn't like him and why his poll numbers were so low.
Eisenwhower too right? Or could it be that Russia has a rich history of doing as they please and without regard for the sovereignty of other countries regardless of who sits in the oval?
 
Eisenwhower too right? Or could it be that Russia has a rich history of doing as they please and without regard for other countries sovereignty regardless of who sits in the oval?

The old Soviet Union was defeated and chastened by a strong US pres (Reagan). Now they are rebuilding under a very weak US pres. ( obama).
 
Reagan was attacked by the left for his military build up and his nuke policy not to mention "star wars". The USSR was on shaky ground and Reagan pushed them over the edge. They would have survived a pres like obama and are in fact now rebuilding with obama in power.

So you believe in communism, think it's a fine economic system, and that, if not interfered with but outside influences, will last indefinitely.


You should change your lean.
 
So far, no one's been able to explain to me what Obama could have done to avert Putin's move into the Ukraine. Can you?

Not much to do now. But when Ukraine became a NATO candidate in 2008 the opportunity to prevent this was on the table. I know it's hindsight, but the pursuit of better relations with Russia appears to be a hopeful approach to placate an international bully. It didn't work then, it won't work now, and it won't work tomorrow.
 
The old Soviet Union was defeated and chastened by a strong US pres (Reagan). Now they are rebuilding under a very weak US pres. ( obama).

The USSR was collapsing upon itself long before Reagan took office. He deserves SOME credit for the end of the Cold War, but he wasn't Superman.

All you're doing is barfing up partisan hackery with zero regard for any circumstance other than "Reagan good, Obama bad." Shameless.
 
The old Soviet Union was defeated and chastened by a strong US pres (Reagan). Now they are rebuilding under a very weak US pres. ( obama).

Because communism is a fantastic economic system that will last indefinitely without outside influence.
 
Putin would not do this because he would know it would be just the excuse a strong pres in the USA is looking for to build up our military instead of tear it down as obama is doing.

I really doubt any of that would be on the mind of a Putin. The only hinderance to him would be if you are willing to send our troops into the Ukraine. If not, then Russia hardly gives a crap what the rest of the world thinks.

Sitting around flexing your muscles it not going to intimidate Putin.
 
Because communism is a fantastic economic system that will last indefinitely without outside influence.

The only thing Reagan did to sink the Soviet Union was to escalate the arms race and paint them into a worse financial corner than they were already in. At best, he accelerated the end of the CW by about four years, max. The USSR's financial house was already crashing down.
 
The old Soviet Union was defeated and chastened by a strong US pres (Reagan). Now they are rebuilding under a very weak US pres. ( obama).
You're dodging. Eisenhower was hardly a weak president, nor was Bush 43, yet Russia acted defiantly towards US interests and statements of condemnation under both. As usual, you're dumbing down an issue to fit your entirely political agenda.
 
What I've seen from this thread is the following:

One side thinks this is Obama's fault. Another side has given multiple reasons how that thinking is utterly absurd. The first side sticks fingers in ears chanting "na na na na na na, I can't hear you, so I'll just keep repeating my defeated position ad nauseam".

Is that pretty much how this thread has gone?
 
We can't do anything militarily and I would not propose we do. The only reason Putin is doing this though is because he perceives obama as weak and easy to push around. Obama has thrown away all our leverage with his talk of a smaller military and less nukes. If we had a hawk pres trying to get approval for a larger military and better nukes Putin wouldn't do this because it would push congress over to our presidents side. Reagan defeated the Soviet Union with his strength and obama is letting it rebuild with his weakness.
You need an update on your hero, the Gipper. I put him on the same pedestal as the initiator of the GW Bush Great Depression. What would Reagan do? Don't forget Chile and Allende! Granada? I, personally, think USA CIA machinations are behind the Ukrainian crisis and I also think the CIA has become a rogue agency intertwined in all of our Diplomatic dialogue. Heads need to roll. If I were Putin, I'd have done exactly the same thing and for the benefit of Ukrainians as a whole, not foreign manipulated protesters. For krissakes, we're the ones that created this problem and now we get flashback. Obama had bettrer get teh CIA under control, or like Jimmy Carter, try to fire them all.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-documents-show-reagan-gave-go

"Soon after taking office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan’s national security team agreed to supply military aid to the brutal right-wing regime in Guatemala to pursue the goal of exterminating not only “Marxist guerrillas” but their “civilian support mechanisms,” according to a newly disclosed document from the National Archives. Over the next several years, the military assistance from the Reagan administration helped the Guatemalan army do just that, engaging in the slaughter of some 100,000 people, including what a truth commission deemed genocide against the Mayan Indians in the northern highlands. Recently discovered documents at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, also reveal that Reagan’s White House was reaching out to Israel in a scheme to circumvent congressional restrictions on military equipment for the Guatemalan military. In 1983, national security aide Oliver North (who later became a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal) reported in a memo that Reagan’s Deputy National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane (another key Iran-Contra figure) was approaching Israel over how to deliver 10 UH-1H helicopters to Guatemala to give the army greater mobility in its counterinsurgency war. According to these documents that I found at the Reagan library – and other records declassified in the late 1990s – it’s also clear that Reagan and his administration were well aware of the butchery underway in Guatemala and elsewhere in Central America."
 
Last edited:
You're dodging. Eisenhower was hardly a weak president, nor was Bush 43, yet Russia acted defiantly towards US interests and statements of condemnation under both. As usual, you're dumbing down an issue to fit your entirely political agenda.

He's hardly alone on that note. I could list 10 posters off my head posting the same ultrapartisan horse**** that he is.
 
At the end of the day, the only thing Russia is considering when doing something like this is how much the rest of the modern world will care. US alone does not a threat make, because our allies aren't willing to endure war because Russia wants to recapture territory.
 
I really doubt any of that would be on the mind of a Putin. The only hinderance to him would be if you are willing to send our troops into the Ukraine. If not, then Russia hardly gives a crap what the rest of the world thinks.

Sitting around flexing your muscles it not going to intimidate Putin.

Obama took everything off the table except direct military action. It is his only card left to play and putin knows he won't play it. Check mate, point set match. Game over.
 
You need an update on your hero, the Gipper. I put him on the same pedestal as the initiator of the GW Bush Great Depression. What would Reagan do? Don't forget Chile and Allende! Granada? I, personally, think USA CIA machinations are behind the Ukrainian crisis and I also think the CIA has become a rogue agency intertwined in all of our Diplomatic dialogue. Heads need to roll. If I were Putin, I'd have done exactly the same thing and for the benefit of Ukrainians as a whole, not foreign manipulated protesters. For krissakes, we're the ones that created this problem and now we get flashback. Obama had bettrer get teh CIA under control, or like Jimmy Carter, try to fire them all.

New Documents Show Reagan Gave Go-Ahead To Mayan Genocide | Crooks and Liars

"Soon after taking office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan’s national security team agreed to supply military aid to the brutal right-wing regime in Guatemala to pursue the goal of exterminating not only “Marxist guerrillas” but their “civilian support mechanisms,” according to a newly disclosed document from the National Archives. Over the next several years, the military assistance from the Reagan administration helped the Guatemalan army do just that, engaging in the slaughter of some 100,000 people, including what a truth commission deemed genocide against the Mayan Indians in the northern highlands. Recently discovered documents at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, also reveal that Reagan’s White House was reaching out to Israel in a scheme to circumvent congressional restrictions on military equipment for the Guatemalan military. In 1983, national security aide Oliver North (who later became a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal) reported in a memo that Reagan’s Deputy National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane (another key Iran-Contra figure) was approaching Israel over how to deliver 10 UH-1H helicopters to Guatemala to give the army greater mobility in its counterinsurgency war. According to these documents that I found at the Reagan library – and other records declassified in the late 1990s – it’s also clear that Reagan and his administration were well aware of the butchery underway in Guatemala and elsewhere in Central America."

Reagan is not my hero and had his faults but in the end he did win the cold war.
 
At the end of the day, the only thing Russia is considering when doing something like this is how much the rest of the modern world will care. US alone does not a threat make, because our allies aren't willing to endure war because Russia wants to recapture territory.

You keep missing the point here. If we had a pres pushing congress to build a super military instead of one pushing them to tear it down Putin would be discouraged from military adventurism instead of encouraged as he is now.
 
What I've seen from this thread is the following:

One side thinks this is Obama's fault. Another side has given multiple reasons how that thinking is utterly absurd. The first side sticks fingers in ears chanting "na na na na na na, I can't hear you, so I'll just keep repeating my defeated position ad nauseam".

Is that pretty much how this thread has gone?
You see what you want to see.
 
Reagan is not my hero and had his faults but in the end he did win the cold war.

No, HE didn't. He played a part in it. So did Lech Walesa, Mikhail Gorbachev, Pope John Paul II, and a host of other people. Reagan did not soar down from the skies on the Golden Eagle of Republican and singlehandedly destroy the USSR -- in fact, the Berlin Wall and the USSR were both still standing when he left office.
 
Back
Top Bottom