• 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!

World War 3 possible Ukraine-Russia?

code1211 said:
Perhaps you should refute my claim.
Click to expand...

Your claim was that he was succeeding in his goal, then you said he didn't have a goal, then he did, then he didn't. I don't know if I'm supposed to refute that he's succeeding our not in a goal he may or may not have...or not.

That's what happens when you keep flip flopping.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Your claim was that he was succeeding in his goal, then you said he didn't have a goal, then he did, then he didn't. I don't know if I'm supposed to refute that he's succeeding our not in a goal he may or may not have...or not.

That's what happens when you keep flip flopping.
Click to expand...

I read your post and agreed with you. He has no goal. Well, amend that. He has no goals regarding the country.

He does have goals regarding the betterment of his political party and the prospects of winning the next election.

Did I misunderstand you? Do you think he has goals? If yes, what are they and how are they represented in the outcomes of his actions?
 
CRUE CAB said:
I think you just like saying no ones opinions hold no merit. Otherwise you are full of it. A take over is a take over. It may unfold differently, there may end up being no shooting, but Ukraine will fall none the less.
Click to expand...

No. I just don't think your statement held any merit based upon the actual facts of both situations. Georgia didn't fall. Ukraine hasn't fallen. If Ukraine falls, it will be nothing like Georgia. Georgia was in the middle of a civil war with South Ossetia. Russia had a treaty in which they were allowed 3,000 peace keepers in South Ossetia. Georgia launched a major offensive against South Ossetia and killed Russia soldiers. Russia responded and drove the Georgia army back across their original lines and then later, after a negotiated cease fire, pulled their troops back into South Ossetia. Georgia did not fall, their army did however get their ass kicked when they attacked South Ossetia. Ukraine and Crimea are not in a civil war, Russia troops have not invaded Ukraine (proper).

So your casual comparison, which was some attempt at being snarky and dismissive of my comment, was off the mark and without merit.
 
Montecresto said:
No, I don't. But you'll find several here that do. They'll be the ones making comparisons between Putin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin........!
Click to expand...

You mean like Hillary Clinton did?
 
code1211 said:
What has Obama accomplished that will contribute to the betterment of the county's future and the betterment of the prospects of the upcoming generation?
Click to expand...

Nice try to change the subject and turn the focus around. This thread is about the Ukraine and how Obama is handling it, nothing else.

He's doing just fine so far IMO.
 
code1211 said:
I read your post and agreed with you. He has no goal. Well, amend that. He has no goals regarding the country.

He does have goals regarding the betterment of his political party and the prospects of winning the next election.

Did I misunderstand you? Do you think he has goals? If yes, what are they and how are they represented in the outcomes of his actions?
Click to expand...

You said his goal was to weaken the US, though. Are you saying that was wrong?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063010722 said:
You mean like Hillary Clinton did?
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton has stupid moments. That was definitely one of them.
 
Lerxst said:
Hillary Clinton has stupid moments. That was definitely one of them.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure myself. Invading another country to assimilate them isn't politically correct in the 21st century, even though that country made be comprised of a majority of native speakers. It certainly makes me wonder about Putin's motives and what's next with him.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Click to expand...
George Santayana
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063010957 said:
I'm not so sure myself. Invading another country to assimilate them isn't politically correct in the 21st century, even though that country made be comprised of a majority of native speakers. It certainly makes me wonder about Putin's motives and what's next with him.
Click to expand...

Putin isn't anywhere near the level of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. There only commonality here that is even reasonable is his land grab based upon the ethnicity of the population. His claim that he is protecting Russians is obviously bull****, it's an excuse to make sure he doesn't lose control of Crimea. Let's face it, he's already lost control of Ukraine.

But he's not mass murdering, he's not deporting thousands based upon their ethnicity or religion, he's not blitzing across Europe (because he simply doesn't have that ability). The comparisons to Hitler are only slightly less ludicrous than comparing Obama or Bush to Hitler.
 
Lerxst said:
I don't see this escalating to WW3...as long as we don't let the war addicted hawks in Congress push the President to actually thinking we need to shoot Russians over this. The Ukrainians aren't shooting Russians, other Europeans aren't shooting Russians, so we shouldn't be thinking about shooting Russians. Ultimately I think this will back fire on Putin both in the Ukraine and at home.
Click to expand...

I agree with this last statement. I get the impression that neither the Russian military or Russian people really have the stomach for fighting with Ukraine. If the Russian soldiers were really eager to fight Ukrainians, many of whom they formerly considered colleagues, then they wouldn't be locally negotiating with Ukrainian base commanders in Crimea to avoid violence. We're now a week into this and not a shot fired directed at people. That is very telling about the Russian military and their relationship with their Ukrainian counterparts. Putin miscalculated in assuming that mass defections would actually happen, and that Ukrainians would welcome Russian occupation.

At home, Russians (at least those with international business interests) do not want sanctions and disruptions in their financial interests. Others, without those interests, have family and friends living in Ukraine and probably don't want them to be endangered by Putin's miscalculated aggression.

It will be interesting to see how long Russians, both military and civilian, tolerate Putin's misadventure in Ukraine.
 
Verax said:
Nice try to change the subject and turn the focus around. This thread is about the Ukraine and how Obama is handling it, nothing else.

He's doing just fine so far IMO.
Click to expand...


You critiqued my comments about a different topic.

Regarding the Ukraine, though, the USA is involved in a legitimate treaty with the Ukraine to defend the integrity of its borders.

Of course, Obama has found the authorization to ignore law and responsibility under the law, so tho swill mean nothing to him.

Treaty would mean 'British war with Russia' if Putin's troops intervene in Ukraine | Mail Online

treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin's troops cross into the country.
Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma – the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine - agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.
The revelation comes as reports suggest the Kremlin was moving up to 2,000 troops across the Black Sea from Novorossiysk to their fleet base at Sevastopol.
At least 20 men wearing the uniform of the Russian fleet and carrying automatic rifles surrounded a Ukrainian border guard post in a standoff near the port yesterday.


Read more: Treaty would mean 'British war with Russia' if Putin's troops intervene in Ukraine | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
OldWorldOrder said:
You said his goal was to weaken the US, though. Are you saying that was wrong?
Click to expand...



Upon reading your comments, I had an epiphany. He seemingly has no goals regarding the betterment of the country or the standing of the USA among nations. If he has no goals regarding the execution of his duties and responsibilities to the country, he has no goals, including that one.

Yes, because of the enlightenment that I have received from your comments, I can say that I was wrong in saying that.

I also asked if you could please define and describe his goals if you think he has any. Do you agree with my epiphany?
 
code1211 said:
You critiqued my comments about a different topic.

Regarding the Ukraine, though, the USA is involved in a legitimate treaty with the Ukraine to defend the integrity of its borders.

Of course, Obama has found the authorization to ignore law and responsibility under the law, so tho swill mean nothing to him.

Treaty would mean 'British war with Russia' if Putin's troops intervene in Ukraine | Mail Online

treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin's troops cross into the country.
Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma – the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine - agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.
The revelation comes as reports suggest the Kremlin was moving up to 2,000 troops across the Black Sea from Novorossiysk to their fleet base at Sevastopol.
At least 20 men wearing the uniform of the Russian fleet and carrying automatic rifles surrounded a Ukrainian border guard post in a standoff near the port yesterday.


Read more: Treaty would mean 'British war with Russia' if Putin's troops intervene in Ukraine | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

So you want nuclear war with Russia to honor a treaty?

Just a suggestion... seems like it might be more prudent to explore other routes of conflict resolution before we start gearing up for the apocalypse.
 
code1211 said:
Upon reading your comments, I had an epiphany. He seemingly has no goals regarding the betterment of the country or the standing of the USA among nations. If he has no goals regarding the execution of his duties and responsibilities to the country, he has no goals, including that one.

Yes, because of the enlightenment that I have received from your comments, I can say that I was wrong in saying that.

I also asked if you could please define and describe his goals if you think he has any. Do you agree with my epiphany?
Click to expand...

Oh okay, cool. No, I don't.
 
Lerxst said:
Putin isn't anywhere near the level of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. There only commonality here that is even reasonable is his land grab based upon the ethnicity of the population. His claim that he is protecting Russians is obviously bull****, it's an excuse to make sure he doesn't lose control of Crimea. Let's face it, he's already lost control of Ukraine.

But he's not mass murdering, he's not deporting thousands based upon their ethnicity or religion, he's not blitzing across Europe (because he simply doesn't have that ability). The comparisons to Hitler are only slightly less ludicrous than comparing Obama or Bush to Hitler.
Click to expand...

I think those comparisons refer to Hitler 1938 and its land grab on Austria and the Sudeten within Czechoslovakia. At that time, Hitler had not been genocidal yet either.
 
Verax said:
So you want nuclear war with Russia to honor a treaty?

Just a suggestion... seems like it might be more prudent to explore other routes of conflict resolution before we start gearing up for the apocalypse.
Click to expand...



I recommended no course of action.

I do find it interesting that no American official has brought this up.
 
code1211 said:
I recommended no course of action.

I do find it interesting that no American official has brought this up.
Click to expand...

So you just want to complain about Obama not honoring this treaty without considering the implications that come with it.
 
Verax said:
So you just want to complain about Obama not honoring this treaty without considering the implications that come with it.
Click to expand...



Just an observation on the weakness of the country at this time and the absence of any integrity as a result. A crisis does not build character. It reveals it. We are being revealed right now.

As a character in a poem once said, "A promise made is a debt unpaid."

The Ukraine gave up it's nukes based on the promise of Great Britain and the USA to guarantee its territorial integrity.

If the Ukraine had those nukes today instead of a promise to be honored by a paper tiger, the Russians would not be in Crimea.

The Russians have no way to calculate how Obama's promised "flexibility" will will reveal itself in the future, but they do have the ability to watch and understand what results it has produced in the recent past.

Do you think the other allies of the USA are watching and wondering if the country that used to flex its muscles will now flex only its abilities?
 
Syed_Mohsin said:
Since Russia invaded the Ukraine’s Crimea region over the weekend, so now new developments are coming in by the hour. The U.S. is now considering sanctions against Russia unless it pulls out of the Ukraine, and the rest of the West is growing more and more and more concerned about the increasing tensions in the region. Meanwhile, some are pondering whether the issue will become big enough to develop into World War III.
Click to expand...

Europe and the U.S. have already ceded Crimea. That is over. Now the question is whether they will allow Putin to continue on with his conquests. My guess is yes they will. If they were serious about stopping it where it is there would be an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea and a wing of bombers on their way to Ukraine. Putin isn't intimidated by talk. We shall see.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Recovering the economy.

Protecting American interests abroad.

The usual.
Click to expand...

Although the BLS invents robust numbers daily and even more, we are still in the quagmire known as the GW Bush (first tortutor) Great Depression. "Recovering the Economy" would be a gross exagerraton. As regards "Protecting American interests abroad" would translate as protecting USA CORPORATIONS oversess and that is Big Energy and Big Banking and I state categorically and definitely, "Screw them!" These are the same Corporate groups that reap the first profits of war. Need I say more?
 
code1211 said:
Just an observation on the weakness of the country at this time and the absence of any integrity as a result. A crisis does not build character. It reveals it. We are being revealed right now.

As a character in a poem once said, "A promise made is a debt unpaid."

The Ukraine gave up it's nukes based on the promise of Great Britain and the USA to guarantee its territorial integrity.

If the Ukraine had those nukes today instead of a promise to be honored by a paper tiger, the Russians would not be in Crimea.

The Russians have no way to calculate how Obama's promised "flexibility" will will reveal itself in the future, but they do have the ability to watch and understand what results it has produced in the recent past.

Do you think the other allies of the USA are watching and wondering if the country that used to flex its muscles will now flex only its abilities?
Click to expand...

This is basically just saying you want Obama to be more aggressive, what would you have him do?
 
DaveFagan said:
Although the BLS invents robust numbers daily and even more, we are still in the quagmire known as the GW Bush (first tortutor) Great Depression. "Recovering the Economy" would be a gross exagerraton. As regards "Protecting American interests abroad" would translate as protecting USA CORPORATIONS oversess and that is Big Energy and Big Banking and I state categorically and definitely, "Screw them!" These are the same Corporate groups that reap the first profits of war. Need I say more?
Click to expand...

You need to prove the assumptions that apparently your entire worldview rests upon, yeah.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
You need to prove the assumptions that apparently your entire worldview rests upon, yeah.
Click to expand...

The first step is a survey. How much property you own in Ukraine? Wars are run with machines and machines run on energy, ergo Big Enetgy makes first profits. Wars run on money borrowed to pay for Big Energy and Armaments provided by the Military/Industrial/Corporate complex and Big Banks profit on Big Borrowed money. I rest my case. You would be required to provide links to dispute common sense. Be my guest. Keep in mind that $2 Trillion of our debt is paying for the Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures (borrowed money).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom