• 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!

Should We Give More Support to the Ukrainian Government?

Should We Give More Support to the Ukrainian Government

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 40.7%

  • No

    Votes: 15 55.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • Total voters
    27
MadLib said:
I wouldn't want to risk being wrong about gay marriage if that would lead to rampant pedophilia and bestiality, but there is no evidence such would occur. Both the Soviets and the US managed to arm each others' enemies without global nuclear annihilation.
Click to expand...

And you're making a wildly inaccurate comparison. There is indeed no evidence linking gay marriage to whatever, but there is MUCH evidence that a relatively small conflict can result in a great war that few could have seen coming. See "World War One", for instance.
 
We should mind our own business when it comes to former Soviet territories.
NATO was about "DEFENSE" vs the Soviet Union. It was never about acquiring their territory in the event of Soviet collapse.

Either disband NATO or get the **** out of Soviet territories.
NATO was meant to be defensive, not offensive.
 
Painter said:
We should mind our own business when it comes to former Soviet territories.
Click to expand...
The Soviet Union no longer exists. What you champion here amounts to nothing less than creating yet another Iron Curtain of subjugation.
 
Simpleχity;1063783494 said:
The Soviet Union no longer exists. What you champion here amounts to nothing less than creating yet another Iron Curtain of subjugation.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union does still exist in the only way that is relevant to NATO.
The Soviet icon is still stamped on over 2,000 nuclear warheads.

It would only take a small handful of nuclear detonations to completely destroy our Nation. After such a strike, we will turn on each other and do the rest of our destruction by our own hand.
If you have even the slightest doubt that this is true, then you have never lived in a natural disaster zone and seen just how fast things go to hell once our grid is down and we have no more gas and food products flowing into a populated area.

The military power (nuclear power) of the Soviet Union is just as significant as it was 30 years ago. Only now it is much more dangerous than before due to a multitude of reasons, most of which center on instability.

Regardless of what is said, NATO's primary function is for MAD. (Mutual Assured Destruction) This is currently and has always been the only meaningful role of NATO.

As long as those 2,000+ Soviet warheads continue to exist, the Soviet Union exists in the eyes of NATO.
To screw around with this is a fool's errand.

NATO can not be allowed to expand.
M.A.D. must remain intact.
And we need to mind our own damned business with former Soviet Satellite Nations.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
It might very well be a fallacy...but do you really want to risk being wrong when the stakes are, you know, worldwide devastation and the end of modern civilization?
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt Putin would engage in a nuclear exchange over Ukraine. He may be a bully, but he isn't psychotic.
 
Roadvirus said:
I sincerely doubt Putin would engage in a nuclear exchange over Ukraine. He may be a bully, but he isn't psychotic.
Click to expand...

Look at this from a mirrored scenario.

America fell, but still has it's war machine and nuclear arsenal fully in tact.
Washington is trying to get Texas back, but Russia steps in and starts arming Right Wing extremists who want to maintain their Independence.

Would an escalation be possible if Russia stood in the way of Washington reacquiring Texas?
How would America feel about Russia arming the Texans?

You might find this reverse comparison to be silly, hell, even I find it to be a bit silly.
But it is the exact same thing that is taking place now, only with the shoe on the other foot.

The answer is that Washington would most definitely view an escalation of war as warranted in the event of Russia arming Texas while Washington was making a move to reacquire Texas.
And Washington would most definitely view a nuclear scenario as "on the table", in the event of such interference.

Back to reality-

You look at this situation with too much bias and you see the "line that shalt be crossed" as being in front of Russia.
But that "line" is not in front of Russia, it is in front of Ukraine.
If we interfere, it is we who have crossed the line. It is then Russia's job to retaliate. And they will, just as we would.
 
Should We Give More Support to the Ukrainian Government?
Click to expand...

humanitarian aid. no proxy war with Russia. as Islamic state is that region's problem and responsibility to handle, this one is Europe's.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Recently the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko appealed to a joint session of Congress asking for more support from the United States. My question is, "Should We Give More Support to the Ukrainian Government? "

Info here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujSPwhHgOeI&list=UUhqUTb7kYRX8-EiaN3XFrSQ
Click to expand...



The US should start bombing this instant. What's good for Iraq is certainly good enough for Ukrainians.

Just no boots on the ground, Putin might wake up and he would be even testy than he is now......then what would you do?
 
Painter said:
Look at this from a mirrored scenario.

America fell, but still has it's war machine and nuclear arsenal fully in tact.
Washington is trying to get Texas back, but Russia steps in and starts arming Right Wing extremists who want to maintain their Independence.

Would an escalation be possible if Russia stood in the way of Washington reacquiring Texas?
How would America feel about Russia arming the Texans?

You might find this reverse comparison to be silly, hell, even I find it to be a bit silly.
But it is the exact same thing that is taking place now, only with the shoe on the other foot.

The answer is that Washington would most definitely view an escalation of war as warranted in the event of Russia arming Texas while Washington was making a move to reacquire Texas.
And Washington would most definitely view a nuclear scenario as "on the table", in the event of such interference.

Back to reality-

You look at this situation with too much bias and you see the "line that shalt be crossed" as being in front of Russia.
But that "line" is not in front of Russia, it is in front of Ukraine.
If we interfere, it is we who have crossed the line. It is then Russia's job to retaliate. And they will, just as we would.
Click to expand...



More than a bit silly in fact...when the US started tinkering in Ukraine, Ukraine was an independent nation...not a state within Russia.

The more valid comparison is if Russia decided to help overthrow a duly elected government in Canada the members of which appealed for asylum in the US.

Then, we can be certain the US would unleash the hounds of war without so much as a pause and start bombing with cries of "we have to fight them there or we will have to fight them here" and "54 - 40 or fight. The USA would be on condition very ****ing red and defcom five, nuked and ready.

Putin haters please note, the Russian president went about his business at the winter Olympics, issuing protests at the international level and the UN. He did not act until after several warnings went unheard and the Winter Olympics, so important to Russians, were over.
 
Russia has targetted Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan for anchluss. The last time people in Europe applied the "where there are Germans, there is Germany" idea, things blew up in a big way.

We should support Ukraine with defensive weaponry.
 
Fearandloathing said:
More than a bit silly in fact...when the US started tinkering in Ukraine, Ukraine was an independent nation...not a state within Russia.

The more valid comparison is if Russia decided to help overthrow a duly elected government in Canada the members of which appealed for asylum in the US.

Then, we can be certain the US would unleash the hounds of war without so much as a pause and start bombing with cries of "we have to fight them there or we will have to fight them here" and "54 - 40 or fight. The USA would be on condition very ****ing red and defcom five, nuked and ready.

Putin haters please note, the Russian president went about his business at the winter Olympics, issuing protests at the international level and the UN. He did not act until after several warnings went unheard and the Winter Olympics, so important to Russians, were over.
Click to expand...

It would seem that you either lack the understanding and knowledge of history or you simply did not apply yourself when evaluating the analogy.

Canada was never a part of the United States.
Ukraine was however, a part of the Soviet Union.

It is off topic, but I also think you GREATLY over estimate the value most Americans place on Canada. Sure, America would help you out. But not to the extent you seem to think.

Texas on the other hand, is a part of the United States just as Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union.

Just under 50% of the Ukraine population (including Crimea) favor Russia and identify as Russian.
If you are trying to say that Just under 50% of Canadians identify as people of the United States, then I beg to differ.
 
Painter said:
It would seem that you either lack the understanding and knowledge of history or you simply did not apply yourself when evaluating the analogy.

Canada was never a part of the United States.
Ukraine was however, a part of the Soviet Union.

It is off topic, but I also think you GREATLY over estimate the value most Americans place on Canada. Sure, America would help you out. But not to the extent you seem to think.

Texas on the other hand, is a part of the United States just as Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union.

Just under 50% of the Ukraine population (including Crimea) favor Russia and identify as Russian.
If you are trying to say that Just under 50% of Canadians identify as people of the United States, then I beg to differ.
Click to expand...



Canada is more than well aware that the US would likely sit on its hands if we were attacked....that trip to Kandahar means nothing to you.

And, your cheap, childish insults aside, I am more than a little aware that Canada was never part of the United States, but thank you so much for reminding me.

And thank you also for demonstrating complete ignorance of the current situation in Ukraine, as the Canada in place of Ukraine has been the mainstay of the comparison by Russia and used at the UN.

BTW, Ukraine was NEVER part of Russia. It was part of the USSR.

But thanks for the history lesson.
 
We should not get involved. We are not the world's police and we should stop acting like we are. If the world as a whole wants to work together to intervene in this conflict, then we can happily be a part of it. But what we don't need is unilateral American action. Least of all because of leftover Cold War paranoia.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Canada is more than well aware that the US would likely sit on its hands if we were attacked....that trip to Kandahar means nothing to you.

And, your cheap, childish insults aside, I am more than a little aware that Canada was never part of the United States, but thank you so much for reminding me.

And thank you also for demonstrating complete ignorance of the current situation in Ukraine, as the Canada in place of Ukraine has been the mainstay of the comparison by Russia and used at the UN.

BTW, Ukraine was NEVER part of Russia. It was part of the USSR.

But thanks for the history lesson.
Click to expand...

You are doing plenty of talking but little reading.
The USSR and the Soviet Union are the same thing.
Russia was to the Soviet Union what Washington DC is to the USA, although slightly different in that the USSR was made up of Republics and the USA is made up of States.
One other difference is that Washington DC is not an actual State, whereas Russia was an actual Republic.

Although it is entertaining, it is not my wish to keep debating things that are already clear facts.
No one ever said Ukraine was part of Russia, but even if they had, you are just being intellectually dishonest in pretending you do not get the real point and jumping on these technicalities instead of discussing what matters. Ironically, you are arguing technicalities and plays on words that never existed to begin with, attempting to make others adopt an argument they never made.

You seem to think that Ukraine has less value to Russia (which was the central government of the USSR), than an equivalent State would have worth to a hypothetically collapsed USA.
If you truly do believe this, then it can only be a result of having a lack of empathy or inability to look beyond your own agenda and see things from another set of eyes.
Russia still controls the entire military machine and nuclear arsenal of the USSR, just as it controlled the USSR.

It has only been 23 years since the collapse of the USSR. Getting involved is not a far stretch from jumping into a nuclear power's civil war.
It is quite simply none of our business.
Add 2000+ nuclear warhead and it damned sure is not your business or mine.
 
It`s interesting, had the current Ukrainian authorities learned the basics of the economy? Judging by the recent actions they just heard something about this strange thing, while walking around backyard of lunatic asylum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom