Ukraine mega thread

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

From the Article:

"Obama said Putin acted out of weakness, not strength."

I just don't know how to respond to such an idiotic statement. Really. Stunned at the self-delusion.

Self delusional? Nah. He just knows the general public tends to be a bunch of morons that will swallow anything.

One smart kid in the room makes better use of his time than to entertain a circus idiot.

[CRedskinsRule]

It should be understood that as much as I personally dislike the "US as world policeman" role, if there is even the perception that the US doesn't stand up for weaker countries, then countries that have a precarious position in their part of the world may very well take actions into their own hands.

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-steps-t...154404038.html

[RedskinRat]

Looks like it's finally kicked off in Ukraine.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Look back at the Obama presidency, its been like this the whole time. Basically sound bites and rhetorical quotes with little or no action. Apathetic response by the voters is even more disappointing than this President. I think he will be remembered as the most disappointing President of the modern time.

Or at least the most disappointing President since George W. Bush, the President who could not catch Osama bin Laden but could tank an economy.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It should be understood that as much as I personally dislike the "US as world policeman" role, if there is even the perception that the US doesn't stand up for weaker countries, then countries that have a precarious position in their part of the world may very well take actions into their own hands.

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-steps-t...154404038.html

History has shown that when the US goes it alone, bad repercussions inevitably develop.

If Ukraine is to receive military assistance, what is needed is an international coalition involving the UN and the EU. The US must have willing partners.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

History has shown that when the US goes it alone, bad repercussions inevitably develop.

If Ukraine is to receive military assistance, what is needed is an international coalition involving the UN and the EU. The US must have willing partners.

I think history has shown the opposite, since the early 1900s if the US has allowed vacuum politics in Europe, historical conflicts re-emerge. In the case of Ukraine, much like in 91 no country was going to support the overt takeover of another country's territory, and if the US had acted less passively Russia would have found itself isolated as the votes in the EU and UN showed. But a weak leadership is forcing lesser players to feel threatened and more inclined to take their safety into their own hands. That path ultimately leads to more fractions and strife.

[RedskinRat]

We had a UN mandate for Iraq, look how that turned out..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

We had a UN mandate for Iraq, look how that turned out..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

True. But Iraq was just a bad idea from the get-go and would have been worse if we had gone it alone. Having a "coalition of the willing" helped to cut losses.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think history has shown the opposite, since the early 1900s if the US has allowed vacuum politics in Europe, historical conflicts re-emerge. In the case of Ukraine, much like in 91 no country was going to support the overt takeover of another country's territory, and if the US had acted less passively Russia would have found itself isolated as the votes in the EU and UN showed. But a weak leadership is forcing lesser players to feel threatened and more inclined to take their safety into their own hands. That path ultimately leads to more fractions and strife.

I'm talking about a different issue. My point is this: if military force is desirable to counteract the "vacuum politics" you mention, it always works out better if that military force is an alliance, rather than the US acting alone.

History teaches us that calling for Obama to go it alone in the Crimea likely is calling for major unforeseen problems for the US down the road. Some folks need to be careful what they wish for.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

True. But Iraq was just a bad idea from the get-go and would have been worse if we had gone it alone. Having a "coalition of the willing" helped to cut losses.

Iraq was a noble idea, poorly executed because politics and political correctness were inserted to a sphere of life that by its very nature needs to remain brutal and unpleasant.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I'm talking about a different issue. My point is this: if military force is desirable to counteract the "vacuum politics" you mention, it always works out better if that military force is an alliance, rather than the US acting alone.

History teaches us that calling for Obama to go it alone in the Crimea likely is calling for major unforeseen problems for the US down the road. Some folks need to be careful what they wish for.

This is a U.N. issue, we (the U.S.) do not need to take the point on this conflict.

A sovereign state has been invaded. It's very simple.

[CRedskinsRule]

Very interesting look at the financial/legal power Ukraine ought to wield against Russia:
RealTime Economic Issues Watch | How Ukraine Can Use Sanctions to Counter Russia’s Aggression

[That Guy]

they can tank gazprom and really hurt russia economically. and since everyone is on their side, russia has no where to go cry about it.

[CRedskinsRule]

[CRedskinsRule]

The Russian view of the situation, including how they see sanctions impacting them:

The Ukraine Crisis and Vladimir Putin: A New Financial System Free from Wall Street and the City of London? | Global Research

found it a pretty interesting read. Parts of it might convert NC_Skins!