• 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!

Obama Rules Out 'military excursion' in Ukraine.....

MMC said:
All she did was rail in the UN and get up and walk out.....Churkin went to town on that crap in front of the UN Body. Then Pudding brought up that bit about Estonia.....and immediately the other countries Simplexity had up started squaking. Now the UN is sending in a Human Rights Observers to the Ukraine. Plus Durbin and Johnny Quest want to send in the OSCE Observers. Which Russia blocked that on the Security Council.

So we will have a bunch of Armies all out Practicing drills and maneuvers in front of each other. Won't be getting around that fact.

Also Now Putin has stated they will change their Stance on Iran.


Russia warns West it may change stance on Iran, in retaliation over sanctions

Russia reportedly is prepared to change its stand on Iran nuclear talks in a high-stakes gamble to counter expanded sanctions by the United States and the European Union over Crimea.

After the Obama administration on Monday hit 11 Russian and Ukrainian officials with sanctions -- a move criticized by Republican lawmakers as too timid -- Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted Wednesday by the Interfax news agency as saying the country may have to alter its position on the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

The statement is the most serious threat of retaliation by Moscow since the disputed Crimea region voted to join Russia over the weekend, and Vladimir Putin's government moved to annex the peninsula.

NATO and U.S. leaders say they're prepared to do more.

Speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., he also said NATO, as a first step, is suspending joint planning for operations removing chemical weapons from Syria.

Ukraine's security chief also announced Wednesday that his country will hold joint military exercises with the United States and Britain

The United Nations is also deploying a 34-member human rights monitoring mission to Ukraine, scheduled to be in place by Friday. Ivan Simonovic, assistant secretary-general for human rights, expressed particular concern over the security of Tatars and other ethnic minorities in Crimea.

A letter sent by Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, and six other lawmakers says monitors are needed to defuse tensions in Ukraine after Russia's takeover of the Crimean peninsula. The lawmakers visited Ukraine last week and say Russia is using "provocateurs and intelligence agents to brazenly stir trouble" in eastern Ukraine as a possible "manipulated pretext for additional military action.".....snip~

Russia warns West it may change stance on Iran, in retaliation over sanctions | Fox News
Click to expand...

SayMyName said:
I understand. Yet, after all the demonizing of Iran over the last 4 decades, do you really think that this country would have anything to do with the United States by way of cooperation?
Click to expand...

Everyone should just quit talking about Iran. Iran will obtain nuclear weapons and trying to convince otherwise is now just worthless, pointless noise. There is no possible agreement of any kind we could ever make with Iran concerning nuclear weapons. Putin's conquest of Crimea combined with Obama now vowing he will not defend any of Ukraine eliminated any possible agreement with Iran now or ever. Iran's leadership would have to be the stupidest people on earth to not desire to obtain a nuclear weapons arsenal ASAP - and just mouth anything to the contrary.

No, I do not think "cooperation" is a prospect and certainly not now after the nuclear disarmament treaty with Urkaine was really just a long range plan to disarm Ukraine to allow it's military defeat.

It is known that any deal or agreement for Iran to give up would be actually just Iran agreeing to expose itself to military invasion and defeat. We have nothing to offer Iran nor any possible way to reach any agreement whatsoever.

All countries of the world now know for certainty that any agreement with the USA isn't worth the cost of the paper it is written on. Iran and then more countries will become nuclear weapons powers.

That the actual outcome of Russia's military conquest of Crimea and forcing the rest of Ukaine into permanent beggar status to Russia. This is a unique harm from the conquest and capture of Ukraine territory that applied only to Ukraine and a couple other former USSR enslaved block countries that gave up their nuclear weapons upon promises of the USA.
 
apdst said:
The Russians wont be fighting for their homeland, in The Ukraine.
Click to expand...

They realize Putin is Stalin and would not hesitate to slaughter anyone and the family and people of anyone who raised arms against his goals.
 
joko104 said:
Everyone should just quit talking about Iran. Iran will obtain nuclear weapons and trying to convince otherwise is now just worthless, pointless noise. There is no possible agreement of any kind we could ever make with Iran concerning nuclear weapons. Putin's conquest of Crimea combined with Obama now vowing he will not defend any of Ukraine eliminated any possible agreement with Iran now or ever. Iran's leadership would have to be the stupidest people on earth to not desire to obtain a nuclear weapons arsenal ASAP - and just mouth anything to the contrary.

No, I do not think "cooperation" is a prospect and certainly not now after the nuclear disarmament treaty with Urkaine was really just a long range plan to disarm Ukraine to allow it's military defeat.

It is known that any deal or agreement for Iran to give up would be actually just Iran agreeing to expose itself to military invasion and defeat. We have nothing to offer Iran nor any possible way to reach any agreement whatsoever.

All countries of the world now know for certainty that any agreement with the USA isn't worth the cost of the paper it is written on. Iran and then more countries will become nuclear weapons powers.

That the actual outcome of Russia's military conquest of Crimea and forcing the rest of Ukaine into permanent beggar status to Russia. This is a unique harm from the conquest and capture of Ukraine territory that applied only to Ukraine and a couple other former USSR enslaved block countries that gave up their nuclear weapons upon promises of the USA.
Click to expand...

Durbin is an appeasement idiot declaring we need to send PR teams to tell everyone in Ukraine to be happy about their country being militarily conquered and they all forced to be impoverished beggars of Russia.

Why not first send PR teams to Mexico to convince them to finally be happy about the USA taking Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and California away from Mexico? Military defeat is such a happy occasion for the defeated!
 
joko104 said:
Durbin is an appeasement idiot declaring we need to send PR teams to tell everyone in Ukraine to be happy about their country being militarily conquered and they all forced to be impoverished beggars of Russia.

Why not first send PR teams to Mexico to convince them to finally be happy about the USA taking Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and California away from Mexico? Military defeat is such a happy occasion for the defeated!
Click to expand...

Tell me how can garentee ukraines sovereignty without suffering the entire region going up in flames?
 
joko104 said:
Everyone should just quit talking about Iran. Iran will obtain nuclear weapons and trying to convince otherwise is now just worthless, pointless noise. There is no possible agreement of any kind we could ever make with Iran concerning nuclear weapons. Putin's conquest of Crimea combined with Obama now vowing he will not defend any of Ukraine eliminated any possible agreement with Iran now or ever. Iran's leadership would have to be the stupidest people on earth to not desire to obtain a nuclear weapons arsenal ASAP - and just mouth anything to the contrary.

No, I do not think "cooperation" is a prospect and certainly not now after the nuclear disarmament treaty with Urkaine was really just a long range plan to disarm Ukraine to allow it's military defeat.

It is known that any deal or agreement for Iran to give up would be actually just Iran agreeing to expose itself to military invasion and defeat. We have nothing to offer Iran nor any possible way to reach any agreement whatsoever.

All countries of the world now know for certainty that any agreement with the USA isn't worth the cost of the paper it is written on. Iran and then more countries will become nuclear weapons powers.

That the actual outcome of Russia's military conquest of Crimea and forcing the rest of Ukaine into permanent beggar status to Russia. This is a unique harm from the conquest and capture of Ukraine territory that applied only to Ukraine and a couple other former USSR enslaved block countries that gave up their nuclear weapons upon promises of the USA.
Click to expand...



Well.....it was Russia that was talking about them here. Not us. Plus it is Putin trying to leverage Iran over us. You don't think Administration is going to allow Russia to have this leverage over us now.....Do you?
 
CanadaJohn said:
And no matter how god or bad an idea, libertarians will be adamantly opposed.
Click to expand...

That depends on the idea, not on the party that proposed it.

If it supports liberty, it is good.
If it doesn't, it's bad.

Quite simple, really.
 
Oops........
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
That depends on the idea, not on the party that proposed it.

If it supports liberty, it is good.
If it doesn't, it's bad.

Quite simple, really.
Click to expand...

Actually, seems to me it's even a little more simple - if it supports liberty for the individual libertarian, it's good - if not, it's irrelevant and thus bad. Supporting liberty for others, such as those in Ukraine at the moment, is not so good. Basically, inside the borders of the libertarian's domain is the only area of relevance. The crown prince of libertarians, Ron Paul, made that pretty clear.
 
joko104 said:
The fear of the left is crippling and cowardice. Incompetent foreign policy.

For decades, the USA did tit-for-tat with the USSR during the Cold War, when the USSR was 3 times the power Russia is. But the left constantly keeps shouting "OMG WWIII!" in pure cowardice and incompetence.

This is the definition of stupidity. Nuclear weapons are irrelevancies between the USA and Russia (which is again becoming the USSR for the White House flying the white flag of surrender.) Any threat of nuclear weapons by Russia is Russia holding a gun to its own head demanding to give them what they want or they will commit suicide. They know it. We know it.

Talk of WWIII with Russia is absurd.

If either Putin or Obama gave the command to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack all we would ever know is a news report that the one of them who did so had died in a freak accident or sudden heart attack. Neither the TRUE leadership of the USA or USSR would allow this to happen, nor would we ever know there was the attempt.
Click to expand...

So you think that marching our troops into the Ukraine would not be a dangerous and stupid thing? Short of that lunacy, what more can Obama do than he has already done? Be specific.
 
iguanaman said:
So you think that marching our troops into the Ukraine would not be a dangerous and stupid thing? Short of that lunacy, what more can Obama do than he has already done? Be specific.
Click to expand...

Nothing! He can do nothing! He's totally useless!
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, seems to me it's even a little more simple - if it supports liberty for the individual libertarian, it's good - if not, it's irrelevant and thus bad. Supporting liberty for others, such as those in Ukraine at the moment, is not so good. Basically, inside the borders of the libertarian's domain is the only area of relevance. The crown prince of libertarians, Ron Paul, made that pretty clear.
Click to expand...
Trying to support liberty for foreign nations by military force doesn't have a great track record over all.
 
apdst said:
Nothing! He can do nothing! He's totally useless!
Click to expand...

So as our President, he is doing all that the USA can logically do. Thanks for the vote of support. At last some on the right are realizing their foolishness.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Trying to support liberty for foreign nations by military force doesn't have a great track record over all.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough - if they don't ask for it - but if they do ask, usually it's pretty successful. I'm pretty sure supporting liberty in most of Europe during the two world wars was pretty successful. I think supporting liberty in South Korea was pretty successful. I think supporting liberty in Kuwait during Desert Storm was pretty successful. I could go on, but you get the point.
 
iguanaman said:
So as our President, he is doing all that the USA can logically do. Thanks for the vote of support. At last some on the right are realizing their foolishness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, finally someone from the left got to Durbin and told him to quit flapping his Big mouth around. Imagine that coming from his own buddies and Boss. Never saw that one coming.....huh?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm with Obama on this one - this is a far superior strategy to creating red lines and then when they're crossed skipping back a few paces and declaring a new red line. Much better to forget about red lines and declare defeat right from day one.

More interesting will be to see Obama's posture should Russian advancement threaten the sovereignty of NATO members.
Click to expand...



He seems to be learning that you can't play the same game internationally you do with your "enemies" domestic.

Besides what option does he have? NATO has ruled it out, none of the individual countries want any part of it and there is no way Americans will support yet another war under the leadership of a man with a Peace prize who has never ruled nor ever will in peacetime.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, seems to me it's even a little more simple - if it supports liberty for the individual libertarian, it's good - if not, it's irrelevant and thus bad. Supporting liberty for others, such as those in Ukraine at the moment, is not so good. Basically, inside the borders of the libertarian's domain is the only area of relevance. The crown prince of libertarians, Ron Paul, made that pretty clear.
Click to expand...

That is no where near my definition of libertarian principle.

It starts with limitations on how much the state can interfere in provincial/state, group and individual lives while at the same time balancing the need for a social safety net.

Some things that are good for the individual must be restricted for the good of the whole such as alcohol consumption, gambling, drugs etc. The aim of the liberal is to find the appropriate balance based on community standards; a practice now being tacitly practiced in Canada where the insanity of a national criminal code is moderated by local practices. For instance, the Vancouver Police department has served notice that it has no intention of arresting self growers in medical marijuana, Harper's new law, nor will the BC Attorney General enter into any prosecutions.

No true libertarian I would walk with would fail to advocate for self determination in Ukraine or anywhere elese. However that support for their rights begins with first the semi-occupation of Ukraine by Russia these many years, AND the CIA's meddling.

You cannot stand FOR their "rights" by superimposing the geo-political needs of super powers as a means to liberty.
 
apdst said:
Of course it's not a good idea, but, you don't tell the Russians that military force is, flat out, not an option. That's going to encourage then.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this, but you also don't say things like "All options are on the table" when you know damn well you have no intention of using some of them. Not only do you know it, but they know it, too.
 
Fearandloathing said:
That is no where near my definition of libertarian principle.

It starts with limitations on how much the state can interfere in provincial/state, group and individual lives while at the same time balancing the need for a social safety net.

Some things that are good for the individual must be restricted for the good of the whole such as alcohol consumption, gambling, drugs etc. The aim of the liberal is to find the appropriate balance based on community standards; a practice now being tacitly practiced in Canada where the insanity of a national criminal code is moderated by local practices. For instance, the Vancouver Police department has served notice that it has no intention of arresting self growers in medical marijuana, Harper's new law, nor will the BC Attorney General enter into any prosecutions.

No true libertarian I would walk with would fail to advocate for self determination in Ukraine or anywhere elese. However that support for their rights begins with first the semi-occupation of Ukraine by Russia these many years, AND the CIA's meddling.

You cannot stand FOR their "rights" by superimposing the geo-political needs of super powers as a means to liberty.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - but then you're Canadian and as a result a much more pragmatic libertarian.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's fair enough - if they don't ask for it - but if they do ask, usually it's pretty successful. I'm pretty sure supporting liberty in most of Europe during the two world wars was pretty successful. I think supporting liberty in South Korea was pretty successful. I think supporting liberty in Kuwait during Desert Storm was pretty successful. I could go on, but you get the point.
Click to expand...

Agreed, if they ask for it. I'm sure Western Europe is a lot freer than it would have been under Nazi control, or even under Soviet control.
 
radcen said:
I don't disagree with this, but you also don't say things like "All options are on the table" when you know damn well you have no intention of using some of them. Not only do you know it, but they know it, too.
Click to expand...

Thats why, when you're a leader, people have to believe you're going to follow through with your threats. Unfortunately, we don't have a leader for a president; we have a community organizer.
 
iguanaman said:
So as our President, he is doing all that the USA can logically do. Thanks for the vote of support. At last some on the right are realizing their foolishness.
Click to expand...

Yoi believe Obama is acting logical? :lamo
 
The big question is : Is this man believable?
 
Woodman909 said:
The big question is : Is this man believable?
Click to expand...

Heya Woodman. :2wave: He wouldn't lie to us now, would he? He has never lied to us before, Right?
rolleyes.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom