• 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

apdst said:
Besides each country's nuclear arsenal, the Soviets knew they couldn't win. The Soviets were truly afraid of The United States, then.

Since we've elected a punk for a CIC and he's purged our armed services of most of the general officers that have any balls, the Russians aren't as afraid of us.

Integrating females and abolishing DADT don't help the situation.
Click to expand...


Oops... Hehehe... Great minds think alike. I should have read the whole thread before commenting. Apdst I was thinking exactly the same thing you were, just independently. :)



Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Oops... Hehehe... Great minds think alike. I should have read the whole thread before commenting. Apdst I was thinking exactly the same thing you were, just independently. :)



Tim-
Click to expand...

It doesn't hurt to say it twice, bro. :)
 
apdst said:
It doesn't hurt to say it twice, bro. :)
Click to expand...

Yep because if we only had Romney as President HE was the next Reagan. :roll: And Russia would have never done this if Romney was president right?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yep because if we only had Romney as President HE was the next Reagan. :roll: And Russia would have never done this if Romney was president right?
Click to expand...

Did I say that?
 
apdst said:
Did I say that?
Click to expand...

well the premise from Cons has been if Obama wasn't president, which would mean Romney would have been, that this would not have happened.

So yes, you did say that.

Or if I'm incorrect are you saying that if Romney would have been president this wouldn't have happened?
 
TheNextEra said:
well the premise from Cons has been if Obama wasn't president, which would mean Romney would have been, that this would not have happened.

So yes, you did say that.

Or if I'm incorrect are you saying that if Romney would have been president this wouldn't have happened?
Click to expand...


Well Romney campaigned on increasing the military not decreasing it. Romney was clearly more aggressive in that regard and even called out Russia as a potential problem in the future. Obama, not so much.

So yeah, we can at least reasonably expect that the situation might be a lot different with "another" president at the helm.

Tim-
 
TheNextEra said:
well the premise from Cons has been if Obama wasn't president, which would mean Romney would have been, that this would not have happened.

So yes, you did say that.

Or if I'm incorrect are you saying that if Romney would have been president this wouldn't have happened?
Click to expand...

Again, did I say that?

Coukdn't wait to come to The Messiah's rescue. Huh?
 
apdst said:
Again, did I say that?

Coukdn't wait to come to The Messiah's rescue. Huh?
Click to expand...

Nope I don't think Obama OR Romney would have done better. Nice try, your partisan hackery knows no bounds.
 
Hicup said:
Well Romney campaigned on increasing the military not decreasing it. Romney was clearly more aggressive in that regard and even called out Russia as a potential problem in the future. Obama, not so much.

So yeah, we can at least reasonably expect that the situation might be a lot different with "another" president at the helm.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Riiiiight, because there has NEVER been a case where a GOP member ran on something and didn't change their views.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm just curious. Although this wouldn't be an exact parallel, do you think we'd listen to Russia if we sent troops into Mexico to protect American interests there?
Click to expand...



sawyerloggingon said:
What makes this different is we would not take over Mexico and install a pupett president. Putin is rebuilding the Soviet empire and obama's "reset" policy has been a huge failure. If Reagan was pres Putin would not do this.
Click to expand...

Actually you are both correct.

Yes, we would not listen to Russia if we felt our national interests were at stake.

Yes, this would not have happened if Reagan was president.


But the reason is because the "Reagan reset" was real, the "Obama reset" is a figment of a community organizer's imagination. A statement that did not require either action or results as long as it got him elected.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Actually you are both correct.

Yes, we would not listen to Russia if we felt our national interests were at stake.

Yes, this would not have happened if Reagan was president.


But the reason is because the "Reagan reset" was real, the "Obama reset" is a figment of a community organizer's imagination. A statement that did not require either action or results as long as it got him elected.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
TheNextEra said:
Riiiiight, because there has NEVER been a case where a GOP member ran on something and didn't change their views.
Click to expand...


Hey you asked for the evidence that Romney would have been much better suited to handle this.. I gave it. Look, NE, you're on the wrong side on this one. Even moderate libs are soul searching ATM. You can excuse this guy until you're blue in the face. Many of us knew it right from the get-go, and many are coming to figure it out. Looks like you're still in the "Obama can move mountains" camp.

Yeah he can move mountains of campaign dough, and tax payer's hard earned money into the hands of his constituents, but when it comes to looking our for America's best interests, well... The proof is in the $30,000 pudding served at one of his fund raisers.


Tim-
 
TheNextEra said:
Nope I don't think Obama OR Romney would have done better. Nice try, your partisan hackery knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

MY partisan hackery? YOU'RE the one that mentioned Romney! :lamo
 
Hicup said:
Hey you asked for the evidence that Romney would have been much better suited to handle this.. I gave it. Look, NE, you're on the wrong side on this one. Even moderate libs are soul searching ATM. You can excuse this guy until you're blue in the face. Many of us knew it right from the get-go, and many are coming to figure it out. Looks like you're still in the "Obama can move mountains" camp.

Yeah he can move mountains of campaign dough, and tax payer's hard earned money into the hands of his constituents, but when it comes to looking our for America's best interests, well... The proof is in the $30,000 pudding served at one of his fund raisers.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Im not excusing anything. Obama has been a lousy president but given the evidence Romney would have been just the status quo of bad presidents as well. Sorry you don't like the truth.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm just curious. Although this wouldn't be an exact parallel, do you think we'd listen to Russia if we sent troops into Mexico to protect American interests there?

I don't.
Click to expand...

With Sawyer, it isn't about the subject, just as long as he can exhibit his Obama Derangement Syndrome.

That is what happens when you swallow all the Fox News garbage as gospel.
 
TheNextEra said:
Im not excusing anything. Obama has been a lousy president but given the evidence Romney would have been just the status quo of bad presidents as well. Sorry you don't like the truth.
Click to expand...

Hicup seems to be under the oft-repeated delusion that anyone who doesn't overtly loathe All Things Obama, or doesn't think that Romney would have been better than a boot of warm piss (he wouldn't have), is some starry eyed Obama Worshiper who thinks The One can do no wrong, as if those are mutually exclusive positions.
 
Kobie said:
Hicup seems to be under the oft-repeated delusion that anyone who doesn't overtly loathe All Things Obama, or doesn't think that Romney would have been better than a boot of warm piss (he wouldn't have), is some starry eyed Obama Worshiper who thinks The One can do no wrong, as if those are mutually exclusive positions.
Click to expand...


judging by your posting history are you claiming not to be a starry eyed Obama sycophant? I bet that will get some laughs here. As for NextEra, I didn't want Romney anymore than any decent conservative, but he would have been a damn site better, IMO on foreign policy than Obama and Hillary, and now Kerry have been. At the very least we wouldn't be reducing armed forces benefits, and increasing federal workers benefits at the same time...


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
judging by your posting history are you claiming not to be a starry eyed Obama sycophant? I bet that will get some laughs here. As for NextEra, I didn't want Romney anymore than any decent conservative, but he would have been a damn site better, IMO on foreign policy than Obama and Hillary, and now Kerry have been. At the very least we wouldn't be reducing armed forces benefits, and increasing federal workers benefits at the same time...


Tim-
Click to expand...

I really couldn't care less. I've criticized Obama plenty of times. The fact that you ignore it is not my problem.
 
Hicup said:
judging by your posting history are you claiming not to be a starry eyed Obama sycophant? I bet that will get some laughs here. As for NextEra, I didn't want Romney anymore than any decent conservative, but he would have been a damn site better, IMO on foreign policy than Obama and Hillary, and now Kerry have been. At the very least we wouldn't be reducing armed forces benefits, and increasing federal workers benefits at the same time...


Tim-
Click to expand...

Sorry but your guessing there just like all the others on the left that said Gore would have been a better president. Your opinions do not matter.

Fact is I have criticized BOTH the Dems and GOP, you just continue to be the GOP lapdog
 
Eric7216 said:
One thing to do would to not make idle threats about there being a price to pay. I don't recall Bush 43 making any comments about how we can not stand for Russians taking over Georgia. It is not in our sphere of influence. In 1948 Truman made some comments about Korea being outside our sphere of influence and shortly thereafter North Koreans attacked. Words have meanings. If you think that you have a chance to get some kind of pressure or international support do so. If not, just say nothing. Obama ridiculed Romney for thinking that Russia was a geopolitical problem. Turns out Romney was right.
Click to expand...

Yes, words have meanings and have impact. True, Obama is not a strong president, and he didn't increase his credibility with his world apology tour.

The Lybian 'leading from behind', the failure of status of forces agreement with Afghanistan, the softening of his position with Iran and their soon to be nukes, the missteps with Egypt. Any number of instances demonstrated the weakness of Obama internationally. This has in fact emboldened Putin to take a gamble.

Obama isn't going to do anything. The UN is pointless at this point, and NATO can't really intercede either, as the Ukraine isn't a member. So looks like the Ukraine is Putin's to have. Of course it's going to be a bit on the bloody side, as the Ukrainians have enjoyed their time out from under the ethumb of Moscow, but hey, all good things must come to an end, right?
 
polgara said:
:agree: The Ukrainian people are not a down-trodden group like we see in so many parts of the world today. They have enjoyed their independence for a long time, and they are apparently not willing to once again be under a "big daddy" regime. I don't know what prompted Putin's move, other than the fact that he may want to recreate the old glory days of the Czars and the USSR, and have everything under Moscow's thumb.

Putin has decided on Crimea as his target, and it makes me wonder why. The country is rich in natural resources, though, plus it provides much of the food for the rest of the country since the land is excellent for farming. Is it a power grab for food resources in the future? Everyone becomes a peon again like in the old days, with centralized planning from Moscow? Interesting...

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
Click to expand...

The change of government could cripple Russia's navy. I believe their acting in self interest, not land grabbing. I could be wrong but everything i've seen, so far, shows Russia to be acting in defense of its self.

Greetings, Polgara :2wave:
(sorry, always wanted to do that)
5 things you need to know about Ukraine's Crimea region - CNN.com
Ukrainian port is key to Russia’s naval power - FT.com
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, words have meanings and have impact. True, Obama is not a strong president, and he didn't increase his credibility with his world apology tour.

The Lybian 'leading from behind', the failure of status of forces agreement with Afghanistan, the softening of his position with Iran and their soon to be nukes, the missteps with Egypt. Any number of instances demonstrated the weakness of Obama internationally. This has in fact emboldened Putin to take a gamble.

Obama isn't going to do anything. The UN is pointless at this point, and NATO can't really intercede either, as the Ukraine isn't a member. So looks like the Ukraine is Putin's to have. Of course it's going to be a bit on the bloody side, as the Ukrainians have enjoyed their time out from under the ethumb of Moscow, but hey, all good things must come to an end, right?
Click to expand...

Agree with all of that. I may be one of the few left thinking this way but I would add Iraq which I view as a good war to remove Saddam and sad to see the current situation caused when Obama was unable to get a status of forces agreement there. Emboldened Syria and Iran and made Saudi Arabia and Israel nervous and looking elsewhere, etc. Throwing away hard won victories.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, words have meanings and have impact. True, Obama is not a strong president, and he didn't increase his credibility with his world apology tour.

The Lybian 'leading from behind', the failure of status of forces agreement with Afghanistan, the softening of his position with Iran and their soon to be nukes, the missteps with Egypt. Any number of instances demonstrated the weakness of Obama internationally. This has in fact emboldened Putin to take a gamble.

Obama isn't going to do anything. The UN is pointless at this point, and NATO can't really intercede either, as the Ukraine isn't a member. So looks like the Ukraine is Putin's to have. Of course it's going to be a bit on the bloody side, as the Ukrainians have enjoyed their time out from under the ethumb of Moscow, but hey, all good things must come to an end, right?
Click to expand...

There's nothing that can be done at this point. We're not in a position to do anything just like Putin wasn't in a position to do anything about our invasion of Iraq.

Putin doesn't want Ukraine. At least not most of it. There's been basically nothing stopping him from marching into Kiev for 15 years. He does, however, have important military interests to protect in the Crimea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom