• 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!

Who's should stand upto to Russia?`

Who should stand up to Russia?

  • US

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • EU

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • UKRAINE

    Votes: 2 8.0%

  • RUSSIA ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • STAY OUT OF IT

    Votes: 13 52.0%
  • Total voters
    25
The EU exclusively, for obvious reasons. Given the total military and economic advantage, the odds for Russia plummet rapidly from desperate to hopeless where the European response begins and ends with holding the frontier. Only a fool invades Russian territory, but then only a psychopath without the will to live attempts to take Europe.

I only wish the politically illiterate would quit with the 'nukes/WW3' angle. It's embarrassing, frankly. I realise this is a 'political' discussion board, but shouldn't we have some eligibility examination to filter out the uneducated and idiotic? At least upstairs?
 
NoC_T said:
The EU exclusively, for obvious reasons. Given the total military and economic advantage, the odds for Russia plummet rapidly from desperate to hopeless where the European response begins and ends with holding the frontier. Only a fool invades Russian territory, but then only a psychopath without the will to live attempts to take Europe.
Click to expand...

Sounds tough. Does it applies though?
 
There are exactly zero American interests in who controls the Crimea. This is a regional conflict and as such should be dealt with by the powers in that region, which means the EU.
 
iguanaman said:
There really is no choice but for the EU to bite the bullet and enforce stiff sanctions on Russia. Trade, especially oil and gas sales are the blood of the new Russia. Starving Putin out will not take too long, but the EU nations will take an economic hit also. Given that they are just recovering from the 2008 financial crisis it is not easy to go back into another so quickly. That is the hold up here.
Click to expand...

US spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine | Alternative

The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department, and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.


The United States spent $5 billion on Ukraine anti-government riots | PunditFact
Above is the US governments propaganda saying well yes we did spend 5billion on Ukraine to spread democracy but we did not spend 5 billion to organize protests.:spin:
Think about this for a minute thats like saying well yes we did promote democracy and when the people did not get it! we had no idea they would protest.:spin:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY#t=504
Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to "Subvert Ukraine"


Meanwhile here in america they are promoting division through race and politics! its very obvious by all the chaos all over the world they want chaos. Do you really think this chaso worldwide is just by accident?
 
Higgins86 said:
I have to disagree with you there. I think given the sheer scale of WW2 it was inevitable that America got involved and the soldiers who died in that war did so defending the US.
Click to expand...

WWII was Europe and Asia's problem,not ours.It did not become our problem until the traitors in office made it our problem.
 
Higgins86 said:
Yep and Nato was in my OP but forgot to put them in my poll lol
Click to expand...

LOL, that's why I didn't vote! There was no NATO or None of the Above option! :lol:
 
jamesrage said:
We got involved in that war by provoking them into attacking us so that we can go oh look they attacked us first so we should do something.
Click to expand...

We got involved in the colonialist racket (forcefully establishing diplomatic and economic relations with Japan and buying the Philippines from Spain) at the turn of the century because the European nations were harvesting and creating vast wealth and power in their overseas territories, whereas the United States had reached the Pacific end of the North American continent and therefore "capped" its internal development. America has always been a country of ambitious men, and isolationism was pursued as a policy because it allowed us to concentrate our energies instead of firing off in every direction. Once the country was settled, it was inevitable we would pursue further development in other regions of the earth -- to continue growing and to amass more power.
 
DDD said:
Would Russia takes the statement seriously that "Only a psychopath not caring to live would venture conquering Europe?"
Click to expand...
Of course. They're not stupid. Putin's a puppet, as with all 'leaders'. His people will rein him in if he goes too far. Look what they did to Yeltsin the moment he mouthed the magic words.
 
NoC_T said:
Of course. They're not stupid. Putin's a puppet, as with all 'leaders'. His people will rein him in if he goes too far. Look what they did to Yeltsin the moment he mouthed the magic words.
Click to expand...

I fear they may be stupidly confident with hubris and willing enough to try and test nevertheless.
 
DDD said:
I fear they may be stupidly confident with hubris and willing enough to try and test nevertheless.
Click to expand...
A direct military incursion into sovereign European territory?
 
Stay out of it. We should not be the policemen of the world.
 
DDD said:
No they may use their satellites in Euope that started WW1 for instance.
Click to expand...
We're in the process of assimilating those very satellites. Even were it not so, Russia's lack of capacity stands, regardless.
 
Higgins86 said:
1. USA the obvious choice for many reasons. Largest military, one of the worlds economic superpowers, has the most to lose from an economic/ social world breakdown, champion of freedom and of course the top dog on the playground who would rather not go back to the days of the Cold War. However many would argue that the US is weary of any kind of conflict whether it be militarily or diplomatic and many American voters would rather stay out of the conflict all together.

.
Click to expand...

The USA hasn't been a superpower for a few years now. That was Obama's agenda that no country is better than any other country that there should be no world superpower.

The USA is still a world power but no longer a superpower.

To be a superpower a country has to have a powerfull military that can be deployed.

The current administration (Obama) agenda has been to change the purpose and character of the U.S. military, use it for liberal social engineering.

We have a hollow military force today. The Obama administration has problems just keeping two Carrier Strike Groups at sea covering the Navy's five Areas of Responsibility. We have Carriers sitting in port that are unable to weigh anchor and "surge" to a crisis.

Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, only 3 are combat ready, properly trained and equipped that can be deployed into harms way.

The Marine Corps is better off, it can only deploy 1/2 of it's forces.

The Air Force is in sad shape. Less than 50% of it's aircraft can't fly either because of the lack of maintenance or spare parts. The Obama administration has grounded 1/3 of all Air Force squadrons. And the Air Force Officers Corps is suffering morale problems.

In the past five years the Obama administration has been purging the military officers corps of it's warriors and replacing them with PC "yes men."

You have a Commander in Chief (Obama) who doesn't trust those who wear the uniform and serve under his command. He orders U.S. Marines to remove the bolts from their rifles and even went as far as girly covers. (hats)

Obama hasn't earned the respect of our troops. Obama don't like the U.S. military and the U.S. military don't like Obama.

That's not the military of a superpower.

Putin lost all respect for Obama back in 2009. Putin don't like pantywaist leaders.

Our allies have watched Obama throw other allies under the bus and don't trust Obama wondering if they are next to be thrown under the bus.

The world has watched Obama surround himself with incompetent people with in his administration. They watch Putin playing chess while Obama plays checkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom