catpaw
Loc: Bakersfield, California
working class stiff wrote:
It was a simple question. Not everything is a gotcha. I was curious: Since we cannot stop a true Russian invasion, if that happened what should be our response?
About Cuba: I don't know...when you say "troops" to me I think of all three branches of the military. So, yes he did use troops.
Kennedy dealt with a threat to US security. Such is not the case of what's going on with Putin. At stake is possession of the Crimea, not Ukraine. The dispute within the Crimea is between Russians and Ukraines. We can ask them to play nice, but if either side flips us off, it shouldn't be any consequence if we don't play the game.
catpaw wrote:
Kennedy dealt with a threat to US security. Such is not the case of what's going on with Putin. At stake is possession of the Crimea, not Ukraine. The dispute within the Crimea is between Russians and Ukraines. We can ask them to play nice, but if either side flips us off, it shouldn't be any consequence if we don't play the game.
I agree with you. I'd like to live in a war-free period, for a time, if possible.
I figured that oldroy would be a good person to ask how far conservatives want to go. With the reference to Sudetenland, you would think this is the start of another major conflict.
catpaw
Loc: Bakersfield, California
working class stiff wrote:
I agree with you. I'd like to live in a war-free period, for a time, if possible.
I figured that oldroy would be a good person to ask how far conservatives want to go. With the reference to Sudetenland, you would think this is the start of another major conflict.
That's pretty much it. As much as I respect John McCaine (for example) he's too ready to send our sons and daughters to the other side of the world over Syria or some other armpit of creation in camel land or Africa. To do what? Change minds of lunatics and idiots?
Just like the school yard bully, if we don't like what Putin is doing, stay away from him. He'll feel the isolation soon enough.
Its Gas pipelines "st...d"..Russia has pipelines going thru Ukraine to supply Europe with bulk of europes energy and home heating needs and the USA/Israel have their gas pipeline going thru the Mideast vying for the same market and luring the Ukraine for their participation with billions and billions of Aid to persuade them to opt for the USA/Israel consortium...Europe is sitting back waiting to see who wins the tug of war so if you see that Europe does not want to lift a finger for Obama you know why.
petertimber wrote:
Its Gas pipelines "st...d"..Russia has pipelines going thru Ukraine to supply Europe with bulk of europes energy and home heating needs and the USA/Israel have their gas pipeline going thru the Mideast vying for the same market and luring the Ukraine for their participation with billions and billions of Aid to persuade them to opt for the USA/Israel consortium...Europe is sitting back waiting to see who wins the tug of war so if you see that Europe does not want to lift a finger for Obama you know why.
Its Gas pipelines "st...d"..Russia has p... (
show quote)
I tend to agree with you, with a little different spin...
I think Europe has a vital interest in the outcome of this conflict and should be taking the lead. That they are sitting back is not, in my view, a referendum on Obama but, instead a measure of their continuing reliance on the US for security.
They apparently think the US has an unlimited amount of money and man-power to defend European interests and are willing to let us sacrifice them.
oldroy wrote:
I have to say that you sounded off before the poster later said that the world is much smaller today than it was in the 1930s. Also, the world was much smaller then than it was in the 19th century. If Chamberlain didn't go home bragging about appeasing Hitler working to preserve peace in Europe it would have been ok but he did get off his plane waving the treaty over his head talking about "peace in our time". By the fall of 1939 Hitler had taken over all of Czechoslovakia and was invading Poland. Yep, "peace in our time" said old Neville.
What was the difference in that agreement about Sudetenland and what Putin is pushing for in Crimea? I wish you could point out the difference but you don't even seem to try. Nothing other than the Crimean threat is pointed at the underbelly of Poland just as Czechoslovakia was aimed at the western part of Europe.
Come on and explain your reasoning to me. Words from you have no meaning without some real reasoning.
I have to say that you sounded off before the post... (
show quote)
The Crimean parliament (analagous to a state legislature) voted to secede from the Ukraine and join Russia. The overwhelming majority of Crimea's residents are ethnic Russians.
A referendum for Crimean residents, to either affirm or reject the Crimean parliament's resolutions will come up in 9 days.
The U.S. and the E.U. should respect the vote and avoid stirring the pot. This is not the Sudetenland.This is a slavic dispute that needs to be settled by the slavic parties involved.
If Puerto Rico voted to secede from the U.S., would it be Russia's place to get involved???
Putin will only try for Crimea at this time. If he trys again in another region he may just nail his coffin lid shut. Bomb the bastard
oldroy wrote:
I ask this question because I know how Mr. Hitler used Chamberlain to get control of all of Czechoslovakia and an excuse to begin the ensuing war. Now will Putin use Ukraine as his movement toward re-establishment of the Soviet empire. They surely are behaving much like Hitler did in 1938. I am sure that there are many here who don't know about the Sudetenland and the "peace" Mr. Chamberlain thought he had won by giving control of the German speaking Sudetenland. Yep, Chamberlain talked a lot about Mr. Hitler as he called the dictator and Putin seems to have studied his European history pretty thoroughly. If Putin takes control of Ukraine then we can consider Crimea and Ukraine to be Obama's Sudetenland.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/putin-just-borrowed-hitlers-favorite-pre-war-strategy/?utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NewMainEmailI ask this question because I know how Mr. Hitler ... (
show quote)
catpaw wrote:
That's pretty much it. As much as I respect John McCaine (for example) he's too ready to send our sons and daughters to the other side of the world over Syria or some other armpit of creation in camel land or Africa. To do what? Change minds of lunatics and idiots?
Just like the school yard bully, if we don't like what Putin is doing, stay away from him. He'll feel the isolation soon enough.
Its funny I did some research on McCain right around the time that they passed the full portfolio disclosure act and funny how he moved all but the stocks he had married into to Cindy his wife. That info doesn't seem to be available any more strangely enough. If I remember correctly it was heavy military contract stock.
"
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN
NET WORTH: $21 million to $32 million
PORTFOLIO: Anheuser-Busch stock, mutual funds, real estate.
Running even with Romney for the number-three spot in Republican polls is John McCain. The Arizona senator is worth between $21 million and $32 million, mainly from wife Cindy's inherited fortune. Her family's company, Hensley & Co., is among the biggest Anheuser-Busch distributors in the country".
Read more at
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T043-C000-S002-political-portfolios.html#qFFqis5yQiUgqlse.99
mpix wrote:
No way. Our progressives are snobby progressives, which trumps snobby Euros. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
And you and ghastly aren't snobby right wingies? :roll: :roll:
Unfortunately you have the 'Hitler' narrative in reverse, it is Obama's retributive reprisal to Putin, for his ability to save Syria from the same fate that the Libyans suffered in 2011 with the NATO strike, the issue here was not freedom for the Libyans or Syrians for that matter, it was to create the 'sharia compliant' caliphate, that both Qatar and Turkey want, with the most effective operator of the Muslim Brotherhood, 'resident' Husseyn Obama, that' the correct spelling for this true Fascist Supremacist Obamaist Caliphate.
It seems to me we are talking in terms of absolutes, when the situation is very fluid and ambiguous. Yes, there is much at stake for us and the future of freedom and self-government. Yes, there are limits to what we can do. Yes, Russia has a direct geopolitical interest in Crimea and Ukraine. Yes, the European Union also has a direct geopolitical interest in Ukraine. All outside parties have geopolitical and economic interests at stake.
However, Ukraine is the direct party affected whose interests should have first consideration. Russia is the outside party who has taken military action into Ukraine in its own interest. Please note that we, too, sent forces into Cuba in that Cold War confrontation on our doorstep, but we accepted in the end the existence of Russian-allied Cuba. The Cold War is now a generation past but Russian and European geopolitical situation continues toward either confrontation or accommodation. At stake perhaps is future transition of Russia to more freedom and lawful self-government and integration into the free world community OR move toward an assertive nationalism tyranny and leadership of an anti-West global faction.
So we do what we can (which has limitations) in the Ukraine situation in the interest of Ukraine and Europe and the future of freedom and self-government. We should refrain from making this the occasion for Obama-person bashing (as with the theme of this posted thread) and interconnections to various story lines of right wingy extremist thinking and realize this is a complicated geopolitical matter where measures and outcomes are inevitably going to be ambiguous and should be outside domestic political partisanship.
Discuss the various aspects of the situation, yes, but leave out the political twisted thinking with this situation.
Got to be amused when complete idiots try to tell others what to or what not to write. Does he think he is the forum brown shirt censor?
jonhatfield wrote:
It seems to me we are talking in terms of absolutes, when the situation is very fluid and ambiguous. Yes, there is much at stake for us and the future of freedom and self-government. Yes, there are limits to what we can do. Yes, Russia has a direct geopolitical interest in Crimea and Ukraine. Yes, the European Union also has a direct geopolitical interest in Ukraine. All outside parties have geopolitical and economic interests at stake.
However, Ukraine is the direct party affected whose interests should have first consideration. Russia is the outside party who has taken military action into Ukraine in its own interest. Please note that we, too, sent forces into Cuba in that Cold War confrontation on our doorstep, but we accepted in the end the existence of Russian-allied Cuba. The Cold War is now a generation past but Russian and European geopolitical situation continues toward either confrontation or accommodation. At stake perhaps is future transition of Russia to more freedom and lawful self-government and integration into the free world community OR move toward an assertive nationalism tyranny and leadership of an anti-West global faction.
So we do what we can (which has limitations) in the Ukraine situation in the interest of Ukraine and Europe and the future of freedom and self-government. We should refrain from making this the occasion for Obama-person bashing (as with the theme of this posted thread) and interconnections to various story lines of right wingy extremist thinking and realize this is a complicated geopolitical matter where measures and outcomes are inevitably going to be ambiguous and should be outside domestic political partisanship.
Discuss the various aspects of the situation, yes, but leave out the political twisted thinking with this situation.
It seems to me we are talking in terms of absolute... (
show quote)
explain when did we send the military in to cuba
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.