Are you tired of the perpetual state of war the US is in?

[cuban smokes]

You know I'm fairly progressive, and I've spoken many times about how wrong we were to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953. As much as I disagree with Jack Hays on almost everything, I have to admit that - if he's on the up-and-up, and in this he may well be - he's got a level of experience in that particular part of the world that very few of us can approach. IIRC, he said that at the same time, the USSR was also agitating for a coup (or something along the same lines) in Iran, that our choice was either for us to do it, or to allow the USSR to do so...and so have access to all the oil.

So looking at things from a realpolitik point of view, AJAX may actually have been - in Eisenhower's eyes - a matter of pragmatism. The problem is, of course, that by doing so, we rightly engendered generations of ill will from the Iranian people. Eisenhower - if I understand him rightly - probably realized this, but job #1 of every president from Truman to Bush 41 was to win the Cold War without it turning hot.

the 'Cold War' is still in progress; it never went anywhere & it never will, until it gets hot, and that may yet occur ............

 

[DaveFagan]

Yeah, that "vote" happened after Russia already took over Crimea. And we all know how fair and democratic Russia's elections are. Not surprisingly, "the legitimacy of the referendum has been questioned by the international community on both legal and procedural grounds."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

So bull**** "vote" aside, what gives Russia the right to take over other countries?

What gave the US the right to invade Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among others.? Elections? Let's look at Honduras. The USA. Haiti.
/

 

[The Lurker]

Well, let's put it simply.

The Russian occupation of Crimea was a blatant, illegal seizure of territory from Ukraine. There was no binding or objective referendum for annexation. Russia seized Crimea to preserve it's naval presence on the Black Sea and maintain it's strategic standing in the region.

Now, I'll grant you this: Anyone who says we should've gone to war over Crimea, or something to that nature, is an idiot. The Russians made it abundantly clear that they saw Ukraine as the line in the sand, and that if the West tried to cross it, Moscow would retaliate with all the weapon's in it's arsenal.

People may bitch and whine about the Obama Administration's decisions in Eastern Europe, but the fact is that no one in American was willing to lose American lives over Ukraine. No one gave a **** about Kiev until Euromaiden.

Even so, I believe that the government in Ukraine was illegitimate and that Crimea should be apart of the Russian Federation. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you didn't really explain what Cardinal meant.

Anyway, I won't hold it against you for making one off-topic post. We've only just met after all.

Pleasure to meet you by the way.

Anyway, let's get back to the topic at hand.

Do you think (and does anyone think) that perhaps the US engages in too many wars? Do you think it should engage in wars at all? What would you do?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

the 'Cold War' is still in progress; it never went anywhere & it never will, until it gets hot, and that may yet occur ............

Good luck convincing our oh-so-patriotic right-wingers of that....

 

[Cardinal]

Even so, I believe that the government in Ukraine was illegitimate and that Crimea should be apart of the Russian Federation. But that's neither here nor there.

The government in Ukraine was illegitimate? Combined with your belief that a 95% electoral victory to rejoin Russia was legitimate in spite of having just been militarily invaded two weeks earlier, your belief that Putin isn't an autocrat and that he hasn't jailed or harmed his political rival, it's clear that you're here for no purpose other than to disseminate pro-Kremlin propaganda, and sow division and poison morale in the US.

 

[The Lurker]

The government in Ukraine was illegitimate? Combined with your belief that a 95% electoral victory was legitimate in spite of having just been militarily invaded two weeks earlier, your belief that Putin isn't an autocrat and that he hasn't jailed or harmed his political rival, it's clear that you're here for no purpose other than to disseminate pro-Kremlin propaganda, and sow division and poison morale in the US.

Uh, that doesn't make it clear at all. It's like saying that if I have pro-Trump talking points, that I must be here to, I don't know, spread Trump propaganda, sow division, and poison the morale of the liberals.

You have no proof for what you are even saying.

Regardless, I hope that we can get on the right foot. And please, you should talk about the topic in the OP.

 

[The Lurker]

The government in Ukraine was illegitimate? Combined with your belief that a 95% electoral victory to rejoin Russia was legitimate in spite of having just been militarily invaded two weeks earlier, your belief that Putin isn't an autocrat and that he hasn't jailed or harmed his political rival, it's clear that you're here for no purpose other than to disseminate pro-Kremlin propaganda, and sow division and poison morale in the US.

Let me just say that I reject your claims. You have no proof that that is what I'm doing. And I haven't been saying pro-Kremlin propaganda.

I hope that you and I can get along.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Even so, I believe that the government in Ukraine was illegitimate and that Crimea should be apart of the Russian Federation. But that's neither here nor there.

Did the Ukranian people not demonstrate their right to self-determination by removing a government which was oppressing the Ukranian people?

Do you think (and does anyone think) that perhaps the US engages in too many wars? Do you think it should engage in wars at all? What would you do?

What a stupid, nonsensical question. There will always be times when our national security must be secured through force of arms. The United States engages in so many military operations because we have global commitments and interests.

 

[The Lurker]

Did the Ukranian people not demonstrate their right to self-determination by removing a government which was oppressing the Ukranian people?





What a stupid, nonsensical question. There will always be times when our national security must be secured through force of arms. The United States engages in so many military operations because we have global commitments and interests.

I believe that it was a Western-backed coup. But that's neither here nor there. Regardless, I think the Crimeans' vote to be apart of the Russian Federation should be respected. But anyway, this isn't apart of the topic.

I don't think that it's "stupid" or "nonsensical." Too many people have died or suffered from PTSD from the US's wars. I think that at the very least a lessening of these conflicts is in order.

 

[Cardinal]

Uh, that doesn't make it clear at all. It's like saying that if I have pro-Trump talking points, that I must be here to, I don't know, spread Trump propaganda, sow division, and poison the morale of the liberals.

Your tactics are as subtle as a grizzly bear driving a burning army tank through a kindergarten class. Whatever you're being paid, it's too much.

 

[The Lurker]

Your tactics are as subtle as a grizzly bear driving a burning army tank through a kindergarten class. Whatever you're being paid, it's too much.

I'm not being paid. You haven't even proven what you're saying.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I believe that it was a Western-backed coup.

It wasn't, but okay.

Regardless, I think the Crimeans' vote to be apart of the Russian Federation should be respected.

It shouldn't, but okay.

I don't think that it's "stupid" or "nonsensical." Too many people have died or suffered from PTSD from the US's wars.

Interesting question. I guess the same could be said for all the Ukrainians killed by Russian artillery, or Syrians by Russian air strikes, or Chechens by Russian bombings.

I think that at the very least a lessening of these conflicts is in order.

Let me guess; withdraw from NATO and the Middle East?

 

[The Lurker]

It wasn't, but okay.



It shouldn't, but okay.




Interesting question. I guess the same could be said for all the Ukrainians killed by Russian artillery, or Syrians by Russian air strikes, or Chechens by Russian bombings.




Let me guess; withdraw from NATO and the Middle East?

We're talking specifically about the US, not about Syria or Russia. I'm not sure why you're brining Russia into this.

Anyway, I would agree that we should withdraw from NATO and the Middle East.

 

[Jredbaron96]

We're talking specifically about the US, not about Syria or Russia. I'm not sure why you're brining Russia into this.

Because if there's one thing that always annoys me, it's Russian and Putin fanboys complaining about American intervention overseas.

Anyway, I would agree that we should withdraw from NATO and the Middle East.

There's no "we" here buddy.

And America should not, but we should continue to resist Russian attempts at destabilizing the sovereignty of our Eastern European allies.

 

[The Lurker]

Because if there's one thing that always annoys me, it's Russian and Putin fanboys complaining about American intervention overseas.



There's no "we" here buddy.

And America should not, but we should continue to resist Russian attempts at destabilizing the sovereignty of our Eastern European allies.

I'm not a "Russian" or a "Putin fanboy." You're making that charge without any proof.

Anyway, when I meant "we," I meant that our government should withdraw. Edit: Not that we agreed or anything.

And the United States shouldn't be getting into a confrontation with a nuclear power. Instead, we should be allies with them.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm not a "Russian" or a "Putin fanboy." You're making that charge without any proof.

If it's such a hollow charge I'm sure you'd have no problem proving it to be inaccurate.

And the United States shouldn't be getting into a confrontation with a nuclear power. Instead, we should be allies with them.

So to scare us away, you just need nukes? Nonsense. Russian interests do not ally with our own. The Russians had plenty of opportunities to become our friends in the 90s. Instead they decided to side with a bunch of mass murdering Serbs, and then claim that NATO was nothing but an anti-Slavic alliance.

 

[The Lurker]

If it's such a hollow charge I'm sure you'd have no problem proving it to be inaccurate.





So to scare us away, you just need nukes? Nonsense. Russian interests do not ally with our own. The Russians had plenty of opportunities to become our friends in the 90s. Instead they decided to side with a bunch of mass murdering Serbs, and then claim that NATO was nothing but an anti-Slavic alliance.

I think the burden of proof lays at the feet of the one who's claiming that I'm a "Russian" or a "Putin fanboy."

In theory at least, both should have interests that align, at least when it comes to fighting terrorism. And you could easily blame Boris Yeltsin for that. Times change. Many Russians suffered during the 1990s. I doubt Russia really wants to get into a row with the United States.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I think the burden of proof lays at the feet of the one who's claiming that I'm a "Russian" or a "Putin fanboy."

Sure thing, American Patriot.

In theory at least, both should have interests that align, at least when it comes to fighting terrorism. And you could easily blame Boris Yeltsin for that. Times change. Many Russians suffered during the 1990s. I doubt Russia really wants to get into a row with the United States.

I don't think they do either. But if Russia really wanted to show that it wanted to be friends with the West, Moscow should stop having a panic time everyone time of of their former republic's decides that the far more economically superior west presents a better option for the future than Russia.

 

[The Lurker]

Sure thing, American Patriot.



I don't think they do either. But if Russia really wanted to show that it wanted to be friends with the West, Moscow should stop having a panic time everyone time of of their former republic's decides that the far more economically superior west presents a better option for the future than Russia.

I don't know what you mean by that, but OK then...

Anyway, I think on the flip side, the US shouldn't be trying to engineer coups or trying to regime-change governments that don't align with their interests.

But anyway, you seem to be quite the hawk. Do you think that the US military budget should be curbed? Are there any conflicts that we should pull out of?

 

[Jredbaron96]

I don't know what you mean by that, but OK then...

Anyway, I think on the flip side, the US shouldn't be trying to engineer coups or trying to regime-change governments that don't align with their interests.

I'm sure there's a whole list of cold war coups you want to bring up.

But anyway, you seem to be quite the hawk. Do you think that the US military budget should be curbed? Are there any conflicts that we should pull out of?

I'm not a hawk. I'm just a guy who knows the United States can be a force for good in this world, when properly led.

 

[The Lurker]

I'm sure there's a whole list of cold war coups you want to bring up.



I'm not a hawk. I'm just a guy who knows the United States can be a force for good in this world, when properly led.

It's not just Cold War coups. Anyway, I don't think a Democrat or a Republican will change whether or not the United States will be "properly led." But whatever, I think I'm done here. We'll just agree to disagree.

Have a nice 2018.

 

[Waddy]

When you accept the mantle of world cop you will always be at war.

 

[Perotista]

"Either put this nation on a war footing with all that entails or no war."

Never gonna happen, that's not how we are any longer.

Sad, but true.

 

[Tigerace117]

It doesn't matter who or who doesn't recognize the vote. There's nothing showing that the vote was illegitimate. And there's no proof that Putin is an autocrat.

Edit: Could you please address the topic now?

Other than the fact that he keeps murdering his critics, you mean?

 

[Tigerace117]

You know I'm fairly progressive, and I've spoken many times about how wrong we were to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953. As much as I disagree with Jack Hays on almost everything, I have to admit that - if he's on the up-and-up, and in this he may well be - he's got a level of experience in that particular part of the world that very few of us can approach. IIRC, he said that at the same time, the USSR was also agitating for a coup (or something along the same lines) in Iran, that our choice was either for us to do it, or to allow the USSR to do so...and so have access to all the oil.

So looking at things from a realpolitik point of view, AJAX may actually have been - in Eisenhower's eyes - a matter of pragmatism. The problem is, of course, that by doing so, we rightly engendered generations of ill will from the Iranian people. Eisenhower - if I understand him rightly - probably realized this, but job #1 of every president from Truman to Bush 41 was to win the Cold War without it turning hot.

Yes, he is correct. Mosaddegh was increasingly reliant on the Tudeh(Iranian communists) for support.......and that would have placed them in a prime position to take over had the situation continued.

I'll take generations of ill will over a repeat of the Cambodian killing fields any day.