I mean why would we?
I mean why would we?
We are the world's police. We decide what is best for everyone else.
Because the US media says so.
To me it's not so much that we have to intervene, especially in a physical way, it's that if we had a good President, this never would have happened and the fact that he continues to be the one who has to deal with Russia makes it more likely there will be worse situations to deal with in the future. Obama is completely over his head, thus we are completely over our heads.
Whites panic at the thought of the 300 year occupation of Europe by the Mongol Hordes. China's and Russia's joint ambition is to once again divvy up Europe, Middle East, and Asia back into khanates (states) as they had completely done before the Renaissance. It's a scary thought.
Why the heck do people assume the US Goverment (or state governments) need to intervene when a woman thinks she might not be ready to have a child?
WWRD... wrote:
To me it's not so much that we have to intervene, especially in a physical way, it's that if we had a good President, this never would have happened
Would you be willing to explain how a "better" U.S. President prevents corruption in Ukranian politics to the point that the government needs to be overthrown? I just don't follow what you are saying?
Likewise, I don't see how we "completely over our heads". This has nothing to do with us.
How would a "good President" such as Reagan have prevented this?
They don't. Read the other threads.
WWRD... wrote:
To me it's not so much that we have to intervene, especially in a physical way, it's that if we had a good President, this never would have happened and the fact that he continues to be the one who has to deal with Russia makes it more likely there will be worse situations to deal with in the future. Obama is completely over his head, thus we are completely over our heads.
Just so we're all up to speed: Russia did the same thing in 2008 invading Georgia (also used the Olympics as cover), and twice attacked the Chechnya region in the early 90s. Neither of the Bush presidents did jack about it.
you know it wrote:
WWRD... wrote:To me it's not so much that we have to intervene, especially in a physical way, it's that if we had a good President, this never would have happened and the fact that he continues to be the one who has to deal with Russia makes it more likely there will be worse situations to deal with in the future. Obama is completely over his head, thus we are completely over our heads.
Just so we're all up to speed: Russia did the same thing in 2008 invading Georgia (also used the Olympics as cover), and twice attacked the Chechnya region in the early 90s. Neither of the Bush presidents did jack about it.
Wait a minute,
So, why is the renegade, Sen. John McCain now furious?
We don't. The Russians are right.
I have been to ukraine. in fact, i was there last summer. never would have imagined the events of the last few months. when i was there, everything was pretty serene, all the people very friendly, the restaurants/wifi/toilets/etc very modern. nothing to suggest turmoil. this country hosted euro 2012 soccer championships for crying out loud.
ukraine yearns for and deserves modernity, democracy, and a chance. putin is trying to take all that away. and that is why the usa should intervene. ukraine is not russia nor should it be. it is in the process of expelling rampant corruption and this process should not be interrupted. this country is the next poland, czech republic, estonia. there is a prosperous future around the corner free of putin.
and that is why the usa should support it. we don't want war with russia, for obvious reasons. but we should support ukraine as it pursues values of liberty and justice. these are values we share and we are in a position to help others who yearn for them. to turn out backs would be shameful.
It's only people from the US who assume this. I guess it ties in with the idea of American Exceptionalism, a rough nut of an ideology if ever there was one. Everyone else in the world is aware of a concept called 'spheres of influence'. The Crimea doesn't involve the US any more than it involves any other globalised first-world country (ie economically).
Put simply, it doesn't concern the US politically or socially and besides, the US only goes to war against third-world countries, or at least makes them third-world before hostilities begin. Russia's second-world with some legacy first-world military hardware and thus are safe from Team Murica.
Usa_UKraina_RUssia wrote:
I mean why would we?
because
1. The US has guaranteed Ukraine's independence
2. The UK (our allies) has guaranteed Ukraine's independence
3. The EU (with most members being our allies) has significant interest in Ukraine
The combined military spending of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy is over twice as much as what Russia spends.
I just thought I would throw out that fact for people to think about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Somebody has to say it. wrote:
The combined military spending of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy is over twice as much as what Russia spends.
I just thought I would throw out that fact for people to think about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Irrelevant. UK, France, Germany didn't walk into and take over Crimea. Russia did. Actions speak louder than dollars.
Somebody has to say it. wrote:
The combined military spending of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy is over twice as much as what Russia spends.
I just thought I would throw out that fact for people to think about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
That's complicated by the report that came out in the last hour that, supposedly, China and Russia are in broad agreement on Ukraine.
If it was all the world powers either neutral or against Russia, that would be one thing. But if China backs Russia, that is a whole other situation.
watchout wrote:
Somebody has to say it. wrote:The combined military spending of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy is over twice as much as what Russia spends.
I just thought I would throw out that fact for people to think about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expendituresThat's complicated by the report that came out in the last hour that, supposedly, China and Russia are in broad agreement on Ukraine.
If it was all the world powers either neutral or against Russia, that would be one thing. But if China backs Russia, that is a whole other situation.
China is looking to use Russia's actions in Crimea as a precedent to take territory from Japan and Taiwan.
just saying been there wrote:
watchout wrote:That's complicated by the report that came out in the last hour that, supposedly, China and Russia are in broad agreement on Ukraine.
If it was all the world powers either neutral or against Russia, that would be one thing. But if China backs Russia, that is a whole other situation.
China is looking to use Russia's actions in Crimea as a precedent to take territory from Japan and Taiwan.
Quite possibly, which is part of what makes this so extraordinarily dangerous a situation. As in, if the situation isn't controlled correctly, you could end up with WW3 - especially if Russia continues to be belligerent.
That wouldn't have happened if China didn't side with Russia - Russia would be so far outmatched that even if it continued to be belligerent, the eventual result would be clear (Russia would find itself unable to press forward). At worst, it would be a Korean War (though with 21st century warfare, obviously) like situation - not a World War like situation.