Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Russia preparing to invade the Ukraine?

ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 11:11:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just a week after the political turmoil in the Ukraine capital of Kiev forced former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich to flee to Russia, Russia is now preparing for a massive "mobilization exercise" right next to the Ukrainian border. Over 150,000 troops shall take part in this exercise which Russian officials claim has nothing to do with the Ukraine. The timing of this exercise is only made even more strange after unknown armed militiamen captured 2 Ukraine airports. Russian official denies that these are Russian forces but Ukrainian officials state that this is a prelude to war and that Russia has invaded Ukrainian territory. Still not suspicious? What about the fact that one of the airports captured happens to be where the Ukraine keeps the majority if thief MIG fighter jets? How bout the 10 Russian helicopters spoofed by Ukrainian border guard flying into Ukrainian airspace? How about what's going on in Sevastopol? Any thoughts?

http://www.reuters.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 11:21:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 11:11:38 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Just a week after the political turmoil in the Ukraine capital of Kiev forced former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich to flee to Russia, Russia is now preparing for a massive "mobilization exercise" right next to the Ukrainian border.

Yeah. It's the largest military exercise since the cold war, too. As is the case with most of the sh!t Putin pulls, this is no more than a demonstration of international political chest-beating. What Putin is trying to communicate with the military exercises is the idea that if he wanted to order troops into Crimea, he could... but he won't.

Over 150,000 troops shall take part in this exercise which Russian officials claim has nothing to do with the Ukraine.

Think of the Russians the same way you think of that kid you went to high school with whose parents jumped a social class while the kid was in middle school: they show off their stuff because it's new to them, and they think it's important.

The timing of this exercise is only made even more strange after unknown armed militiamen captured 2 Ukraine airports. Russian official denies that these are Russian forces but Ukrainian officials state that this is a prelude to war and that Russia has invaded Ukrainian territory. Still not suspicious? What about the fact that one of the airports captured happens to be where the Ukraine keeps the majority if thief MIG fighter jets? How bout the 10 Russian helicopters spoofed by Ukrainian border guard flying into Ukrainian airspace? How about what's going on in Sevastopol? Any thoughts?

Russia isn't going to do a damn thing. They feel obliged to make it look like they could if they wanted too, because of their culturally ingrained inferiority complexes, but that's it.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 11:35:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 11:21:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/28/2014 11:11:38 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Just a week after the political turmoil in the Ukraine capital of Kiev forced former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich to flee to Russia, Russia is now preparing for a massive "mobilization exercise" right next to the Ukrainian border.

Yeah. It's the largest military exercise since the cold war, too. As is the case with most of the sh!t Putin pulls, this is no more than a demonstration of international political chest-beating. What Putin is trying to communicate with the military exercises is the idea that if he wanted to order troops into Crimea, he could... but he won't.

Over 150,000 troops shall take part in this exercise which Russian officials claim has nothing to do with the Ukraine.

Think of the Russians the same way you think of that kid you went to high school with whose parents jumped a social class while the kid was in middle school: they show off their stuff because it's new to them, and they think it's important.

The timing of this exercise is only made even more strange after unknown armed militiamen captured 2 Ukraine airports. Russian official denies that these are Russian forces but Ukrainian officials state that this is a prelude to war and that Russia has invaded Ukrainian territory. Still not suspicious? What about the fact that one of the airports captured happens to be where the Ukraine keeps the majority if thief MIG fighter jets? How bout the 10 Russian helicopters spoofed by Ukrainian border guard flying into Ukrainian airspace? How about what's going on in Sevastopol? Any thoughts?

Russia isn't going to do a damn thing. They feel obliged to make it look like they could if they wanted too, because of their culturally ingrained inferiority complexes, but that's it.

Those were my thoughts exactly. Russia wouldn't dare start something especially when they have so little to gain anyway. In the case of Syria it was basically just the US they had to worry about but in this case with the Ukraine almost the entire EU as well as the US would immediately react if Russia were to invade. This would be suicide for Putin.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 11:39:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 11:35:38 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 11:21:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/28/2014 11:11:38 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Just a week after the political turmoil in the Ukraine capital of Kiev forced former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich to flee to Russia, Russia is now preparing for a massive "mobilization exercise" right next to the Ukrainian border.

Yeah. It's the largest military exercise since the cold war, too. As is the case with most of the sh!t Putin pulls, this is no more than a demonstration of international political chest-beating. What Putin is trying to communicate with the military exercises is the idea that if he wanted to order troops into Crimea, he could... but he won't.

Over 150,000 troops shall take part in this exercise which Russian officials claim has nothing to do with the Ukraine.

Think of the Russians the same way you think of that kid you went to high school with whose parents jumped a social class while the kid was in middle school: they show off their stuff because it's new to them, and they think it's important.

The timing of this exercise is only made even more strange after unknown armed militiamen captured 2 Ukraine airports. Russian official denies that these are Russian forces but Ukrainian officials state that this is a prelude to war and that Russia has invaded Ukrainian territory. Still not suspicious? What about the fact that one of the airports captured happens to be where the Ukraine keeps the majority if thief MIG fighter jets? How bout the 10 Russian helicopters spoofed by Ukrainian border guard flying into Ukrainian airspace? How about what's going on in Sevastopol? Any thoughts?

Russia isn't going to do a damn thing. They feel obliged to make it look like they could if they wanted too, because of their culturally ingrained inferiority complexes, but that's it.

Those were my thoughts exactly. Russia wouldn't dare start something especially when they have so little to gain anyway.

Well, if the West wouldn't intervene to counter, Russia could stand to gain quite a bit in intervening. Russia has extraordinary economic interests, political interests and cultural ties to the Ukraine -far more than Europe. The problem is that Ukrainians want liberal democracy, which is wholly antithetical to what Moscow wants in Kiev.

In the case of Syria it was basically just the US they had to worry about but in this case with the Ukraine almost the entire EU as well as the US would immediately react if Russia were to invade. This would be suicide for Putin.

It wouldn't be suicide, but the costs wouldn't justify the benefits -at least not yet. I don't know that the entire EU would react -but the United States would, and Putin knows it (or at leaf suspects it), and he is smart enough to know that he would loose that fight.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 11:47:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 11:39:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/28/2014 11:35:38 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 11:21:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/28/2014 11:11:38 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Just a week after the political turmoil in the Ukraine capital of Kiev forced former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich to flee to Russia, Russia is now preparing for a massive "mobilization exercise" right next to the Ukrainian border.

Yeah. It's the largest military exercise since the cold war, too. As is the case with most of the sh!t Putin pulls, this is no more than a demonstration of international political chest-beating. What Putin is trying to communicate with the military exercises is the idea that if he wanted to order troops into Crimea, he could... but he won't.

Over 150,000 troops shall take part in this exercise which Russian officials claim has nothing to do with the Ukraine.

Think of the Russians the same way you think of that kid you went to high school with whose parents jumped a social class while the kid was in middle school: they show off their stuff because it's new to them, and they think it's important.

The timing of this exercise is only made even more strange after unknown armed militiamen captured 2 Ukraine airports. Russian official denies that these are Russian forces but Ukrainian officials state that this is a prelude to war and that Russia has invaded Ukrainian territory. Still not suspicious? What about the fact that one of the airports captured happens to be where the Ukraine keeps the majority if thief MIG fighter jets? How bout the 10 Russian helicopters spoofed by Ukrainian border guard flying into Ukrainian airspace? How about what's going on in Sevastopol? Any thoughts?

Russia isn't going to do a damn thing. They feel obliged to make it look like they could if they wanted too, because of their culturally ingrained inferiority complexes, but that's it.

Those were my thoughts exactly. Russia wouldn't dare start something especially when they have so little to gain anyway.

Well, if the West wouldn't intervene to counter, Russia could stand to gain quite a bit in intervening. Russia has extraordinary economic interests, political interests and cultural ties to the Ukraine -far more than Europe. The problem is that Ukrainians want liberal democracy, which is wholly antithetical to what Moscow wants in Kiev.

Oh I didn't me by that standard. Of course Russia has large interest in that area I just meant that the reaction they would get from the west would make what gains they could achieve not worth it.

In the case of Syria it was basically just the US they had to worry about but in this case with the Ukraine almost the entire EU as well as the US would immediately react if Russia were to invade. This would be suicide for Putin.

It wouldn't be suicide, but the costs wouldn't justify the benefits -at least not yet. I don't know that the entire EU would react -but the United States would, and Putin knows it (or at leaf suspects it), and he is smart enough to know that he would loose that fight.

I think a large portion of the EU would react. This whole thing started over the Ukrain joining the EU and the EU has as much interest in the area as Russia does.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 8:31:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well... I was wrong. Obama announced early this evening that Russian troops are in Ukraine right now. I didn't think that would happen, but I clearly misassessed at least one of the following: (1) how important the crisis in Ukraine's outcome is to Putin, (2) Putin's assessment of Obama's willingness to counter his military audacity, (3) the extent to which Putin is indifferent to European retribution.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 10:10:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 8:31:57 PM, YYW wrote:
Well... I was wrong. Obama announced early this evening that Russian troops are in Ukraine right now. I didn't think that would happen, but I clearly misassessed at least one of the following: (1) how important the crisis in Ukraine's outcome is to Putin, (2) Putin's assessment of Obama's willingness to counter his military audacity, (3) the extent to which Putin is indifferent to European retribution.

Oh wow. When did this happen? How many?
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 10:26:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 10:10:07 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 8:31:57 PM, YYW wrote:
Well... I was wrong. Obama announced early this evening that Russian troops are in Ukraine right now. I didn't think that would happen, but I clearly misassessed at least one of the following: (1) how important the crisis in Ukraine's outcome is to Putin, (2) Putin's assessment of Obama's willingness to counter his military audacity, (3) the extent to which Putin is indifferent to European retribution.

Oh wow. When did this happen? How many?

When it happened and how many are unclear. It was reported by American media this afternoon, and estimates range from a few hundred to in excess of 2,000.

The ground level intelligence available, at least to the public, is very limited.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 10:34:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 10:26:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/28/2014 10:10:07 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 8:31:57 PM, YYW wrote:
Well... I was wrong. Obama announced early this evening that Russian troops are in Ukraine right now. I didn't think that would happen, but I clearly misassessed at least one of the following: (1) how important the crisis in Ukraine's outcome is to Putin, (2) Putin's assessment of Obama's willingness to counter his military audacity, (3) the extent to which Putin is indifferent to European retribution.

Oh wow. When did this happen? How many?

When it happened and how many are unclear. It was reported by American media this afternoon, and estimates range from a few hundred to in excess of 2,000.

The ground level intelligence available, at least to the public, is very limited.

Well this sure will be interesting.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 10:35:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 10:30:18 PM, YYW wrote:
The best coverage at this time:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Geez if this escalates any more Putin might get a strongly worded letter from the UN.
Debate.org Moderator
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 10:47:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 10:35:32 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 10:30:18 PM, YYW wrote:
The best coverage at this time:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Geez if this escalates any more Putin might get a strongly worded letter from the UN.

The fact that Putin has troops in Crimea is enough to indicate the lengths he's willing to protect his interests in Ukraine -and it's very clear that he caught the Obama administration off guard.

Kerry's comments are enough to indicate that at least publicly, Kerry is willing to make it seem like he believes Sergei Lavrov's bullsh!t denial that this constitutes a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.

Add to Kerry's comments, Obama's speech which was practically meaningless, especially against the context of Obama's conspicuous diplomatic/militaristic impotence and it becomes pretty clear that Putin at least assumes that Obama isn't going to do a damn thing about this other than "condemn" it.

It's early to speculate about ends, but right now we can know that (1) whether Crimea remains a part of Ukraine after this is over could be in question, (2) if Obama refuses to intervene, the world becomes less secure, and (3) what's happening in Ukraine now is just the beginning.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 10:52:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 10:47:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/28/2014 10:35:32 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 10:30:18 PM, YYW wrote:
The best coverage at this time:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Geez if this escalates any more Putin might get a strongly worded letter from the UN.

The fact that Putin has troops in Crimea is enough to indicate the lengths he's willing to protect his interests in Ukraine -and it's very clear that he caught the Obama administration off guard.


Agreed.

Kerry's comments are enough to indicate that at least publicly, Kerry is willing to make it seem like he believes Sergei Lavrov's bullsh!t denial that this constitutes a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.


Agreed.

Add to Kerry's comments, Obama's speech which was practically meaningless, especially against the context of Obama's conspicuous diplomatic/militaristic impotence and it becomes pretty clear that Putin at least assumes that Obama isn't going to do a damn thing about this other than "condemn" it.


Agreed. And I agree with Putin if he assumes that the US wont intervene.

It's early to speculate about ends, but right now we can know that (1) whether Crimea remains a part of Ukraine after this is over could be in question, (2) if Obama refuses to intervene, the world becomes less secure, and (3) what's happening in Ukraine now is just the beginning.

Agreed.
Debate.org Moderator
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 10:30:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So this thing just keeps getting bigger and bigger. It's actually hilarious. Just a few days ago we had assurance from Obama that nothing was going to happen and that Putin wouldn't dream of invading the Ukraine. And now, just around an hour ago, the Russian senate has approved Putins request for military action in the Ukraine. This of course following the Russian occupation of the Crimean. It looks like war is just around the corner gentlemen. For all we know we could be at war next week.

http://www.nytimes.com...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 7:11:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So long as Obama is president, every dictator in the world has total confidence the US will do nothing. The US has cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan. the US backed down in Syria, Iran will have nukes whenever it wants. Terrorists killed the US ambassador in Benghazi with no repercussions whatsoever. The same day Putin sent troops into the Ukraine, the US Secretary of Defense announced a plan to cut the US military to below pre-WWII levels.

Putin wants the Ukraine to secure open-water port access to the Mediterranean. The Ukraine was the wheat-growing region of the Soviet Union. Putin will do as he wishes without opposition from the US.

What could the US do? The US has treaty rights to station two frigates in the Black Sea. Obama unilaterally cancelled plans to put a missile defense shield in Poland. Obama unilaterally elected to cut the US military. Obama could organize opposition to Russia in the free world. Obama could start reversing decisions to become powerless.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:15:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:12:11 PM, XLAV wrote:
Crimean War II or World War III?

Dunno. Russia needs more allies.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 2:34:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If your comments are representative of the American people then it appears to me that Obama has saved the world from nuclear war again. I have to wonder whether or not they are? Maybe more Americans will sound off on the situation?

As far as Syria goes, the situation seems to have resolved itself in the interests of the US at the moment. Would you not agree?

At 3/1/2014 7:11:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So long as Obama is president, every dictator in the world has total confidence the US will do nothing. The US has cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan. the US backed down in Syria, Iran will have nukes whenever it wants. Terrorists killed the US ambassador in Benghazi with no repercussions whatsoever. The same day Putin sent troops into the Ukraine, the US Secretary of Defense announced a plan to cut the US military to below pre-WWII levels.

Putin wants the Ukraine to secure open-water port access to the Mediterranean. The Ukraine was the wheat-growing region of the Soviet Union. Putin will do as he wishes without opposition from the US.

What could the US do? The US has treaty rights to station two frigates in the Black Sea. Obama unilaterally cancelled plans to put a missile defense shield in Poland. Obama unilaterally elected to cut the US military. Obama could organize opposition to Russia in the free world. Obama could start reversing decisions to become powerless.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:00:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 7:11:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So long as Obama is president, every dictator in the world has total confidence the US will do nothing.

Correct.

The US has cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Correct.

the US backed down in Syria,

The US didn't back down. Barack Obama acted like a coward.

Iran will have nukes whenever it wants.

Until Obama is out of office, then his successor will have to clean up his mess.

Terrorists killed the US ambassador in Benghazi with no repercussions whatsoever.

There may have been repercussions that we don't know about, but it looks like they acted with impunity.

The same day Putin sent troops into the Ukraine, the US Secretary of Defense announced a plan to cut the US military to below pre-WWII levels.

The irony is startling.

Putin wants the Ukraine to secure open-water port access to the Mediterranean. The Ukraine was the wheat-growing region of the Soviet Union. Putin will do as he wishes without opposition from the US.

The US will "oppose" what Putin is doing, but only rhetorically.

What could the US do? The US has treaty rights to station two frigates in the Black Sea.

And yet, there have been no indications from Washington that war ships are even headed in that direction.

Obama unilaterally cancelled plans to put a missile defense shield in Poland. Obama unilaterally elected to cut the US military.

Obama, and his administration of ivy league advisors probably argued that a new global power structure no longer necessitated US hegemonic overreach -assuming that the relative peace we have enjoyed in our time was a sufficient cause, rather than the effect of projected American power.

Obama could organize opposition to Russia in the free world. Obama could start reversing decisions to become powerless.

I hope that's what he's doing now, but I doubt even if that is what he is doing, that he will be able to successfully orchestrate any kind of an international response. In a not entirely unrelated note, the Obama administration had an analogy for the Syrian rebels they used to justify Washington's limited response: "just because you give a middle school basketball team lakers uniforms, doesn't mean that they can play in the NBA." Similarly, just because you give a constitutional law professor the presidency doesn't mean he knows how to act like a commander in chief.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 8:51:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 2:34:35 PM, monty1 wrote:
If your comments are representative of the American people then it appears to me that Obama has saved the world from nuclear war again. I have to wonder whether or not they are? Maybe more Americans will sound off on the situation?

Did Neville chamberlain really bring peace by surrendering? Always surrendering seems to "save the world," but in fact it tells bad actors like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea that US assurances are worthless. Among those assurances are protection under the US nuclear umbrella. The result is most likely large scale proliferation at the same time that dictatorships are embolden. That's not "saving the world."

As far as Syria goes, the situation seems to have resolved itself in the interests of the US at the moment. Would you not agree?

No, I don't agree. Iran has set up supply lines across Iraq directly into Syria, expanding the Iranian empire and threatening the domination of the Middle East. That's probably more of an immediate problem for Europe than for the US, but it will give terrorists enormous resources. US interests were in seeing a moderate democratic regime in Syria. Now moderates are all but wiped out and al Qaeda has risen to become a major force. It now seems that the large stocks of poisoned gas won't be destroyed, but that's not certain yet.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 10:26:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It seems to me Roy that what Syria is doing is none of the US"s business. As far as domination of the ME, I would much rather the ME be dominated from within as opposed to the US plans of dominating Syria as a colonial. And in fact Roy, due to US interference in the Ukraine, the US should expect zero cooperation from Russia now on the Syrian situation. After all, it's their sphere of influence and they have no intention of relinquishing it to US control. Assad will most certainly continue to win the struggle against the rebel terrorists and there's not much the US can do about it. In fact, it doesn't want to interfere, only to prolong the struggle at the Syrian people's expense in lives lost.

If all this seems quite foreign to you Roy then it's probably because you only listen to your own country's propaganda. Expand your horizons!

At 3/2/2014 8:51:02 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 3/2/2014 2:34:35 PM, monty1 wrote:
If your comments are representative of the American people then it appears to me that Obama has saved the world from nuclear war again. I have to wonder whether or not they are? Maybe more Americans will sound off on the situation?


Did Neville chamberlain really bring peace by surrendering? Always surrendering seems to "save the world," but in fact it tells bad actors like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea that US assurances are worthless. Among those assurances are protection under the US nuclear umbrella. The result is most likely large scale proliferation at the same time that dictatorships are embolden. That's not "saving the world."

As far as Syria goes, the situation seems to have resolved itself in the interests of the US at the moment. Would you not agree?

No, I don't agree. Iran has set up supply lines across Iraq directly into Syria, expanding the Iranian empire and threatening the domination of the Middle East. That's probably more of an immediate problem for Europe than for the US, but it will give terrorists enormous resources. US interests were in seeing a moderate democratic regime in Syria. Now moderates are all but wiped out and al Qaeda has risen to become a major force. It now seems that the large stocks of poisoned gas won't be destroyed, but that's not certain yet.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 10:46:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 10:26:41 PM, monty1 wrote:
It seems to me Roy that what Syria is doing is none of the US"s business. As far as domination of the ME, I would much rather the ME be dominated from within as opposed to the US plans of dominating Syria as a colonial. And in fact Roy, due to US interference in the Ukraine, the US should expect zero cooperation from Russia now on the Syrian situation. After all, it's their sphere of influence and they have no intention of relinquishing it to US control. Assad will most certainly continue to win the struggle against the rebel terrorists and there's not much the US can do about it. In fact, it doesn't want to interfere, only to prolong the struggle at the Syrian people's expense in lives lost.

the US interest in Syria per se is not too great. It has an interest in having democray in the Middle East rather than fanatical dictators, and it ahs an interest in keeping poisoned gas out of the hands of fanatics and terrorists.

There is a strong humanitarian interest in ending the conflict and deposing Assad.

However, the main interest is in preventing Iran from controlling the Middle East. al Qaeda says they want to kill every man, woman, and child in the United States, and to impose sharia law on the world. I think they are being candid about that. Ayatollah Komeini says that world configration will precede the return of the 12th Imam that leads to Muslim domination of the world. Nukes would be good for that.

The US has now found out how to extract so much oil that energy independence is projected in about six years. At present most US oil supplies are from North America. the Europeans need Middle East oil, not the US. Syria, of course, is not an oil producer.

Why do you suppose that the US wants Syria as a colony? I've never even heard American leftists argue that one.

If all this seems quite foreign to you Roy then it's probably because you only listen to your own country's propaganda. Expand your horizons!

Oh sure, all I need to do is believe that you communicate directly with some god or commissar that gives you the Real Truth. Baloney.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 10:50:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
US humanitarian interest in the ME Roy? Similar to the two US wars on Iraq because Saddam still had the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Over and out!
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 10:51:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes.

End of thread
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 10:59:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
But seriously, this is a golden opportunity for Putin to take back Crimea, and we all know how that would benefit Russia. They would have better access to their favorite black sea ports, some strategic resources, and more clout in the region as a whole.

Putin knows that the UN is a figurehead and that Obama can't risk lighting the tinderbox. Ukraine is too weak to do anything and the former leader's isolation gives them a "valid" reason to invade. Puppeting the Ukraine will be simple now.

The only question is whether or not the EU blows up about this. After all, the EU was what started it all. I predict that France will be the only one with the balls to stand up to Putin, and maybe the UK. Obama will be caught in the middle and declare neutrality and limited sanctions. The Ukraine will be overun, but the EU will bring down hell on Russia with sanctions. America, being seen as an accomplice due to lack of action, will become hated by the international community.

Years of strife over the political corruption and corporate rule of America will bubble up as Americans realise how pathetic America is. Civil war ensues and millions of lives are lost as Conservative vs Democrat becomes war. The war is won by the Democratic Union, who then lead America into neutrality as the United EU and Russia duke it out in Crimea.

Meanwhile, Switzerland is neutral
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 11:00:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 7:11:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
So long as Obama is president, every dictator in the world has total confidence the US will do nothing. The US has cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan. the US backed down in Syria, Iran will have nukes whenever it wants. Terrorists killed the US ambassador in Benghazi with no repercussions whatsoever. The same day Putin sent troops into the Ukraine, the US Secretary of Defense announced a plan to cut the US military to below pre-WWII levels.

Now as for Iraq, most Americans certainly wanted the US to pull out.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...
http://www.gallup.com...

I believe that war was a mistake, and it certainly had disastrous consequences for the US. Certainly it was a major factor in sending us crashing into this recession. Afghanistan is less black-and-white. Pulling out will almost definitely lead to the Taliban taking over. On the other hand, Afghanistan isn't called the Graveyard of Empires for nothing, and the last thing the US needs is to get involved in another drawn-out, money-sucking war.

I also support cutting US military spending, though I don't think it should be as drastic. Currently the US spends more on its military than any other country. In fact, I'd say the US spends a ridiculous amount of money on the military, making up nearly 40% of global militaristic spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.globalissues.org...

Putin wants the Ukraine to secure open-water port access to the Mediterranean. The Ukraine was the wheat-growing region of the Soviet Union. Putin will do as he wishes without opposition from the US.

What could the US do? The US has treaty rights to station two frigates in the Black Sea. Obama unilaterally cancelled plans to put a missile defense shield in Poland. Obama unilaterally elected to cut the US military. Obama could organize opposition to Russia in the free world. Obama could start reversing decisions to become powerless.

On this point, Obama absolutely should (and very likely won't) organise opposition to Russia. Obama has been one of the weakest presidents in US history.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 11:25:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 11:00:06 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now as for Iraq, most Americans certainly wanted the US to pull out.

that's an ad populum fallacy. People are not foreign policy experts. The war was won when Bush left office. Obama changed the policy to cut and run, with Iran the victor in that. A stable democracy would have been worthwhile. Now it's a disaster.

I believe that war was a mistake, and it certainly had disastrous consequences for the US. Certainly it was a major factor in sending us crashing into this recession.

Total war spending has been $150 - $200 billion per year, insignificant in the US economy. The recession was caused by the collapse of the housing market, largely a result of government policy to push bad mortgage loans. the banking industry wa scomplicit in going along with the policy. Nothing remotely to do with wars.

Afghanistan is less black-and-white. Pulling out will almost definitely lead to the Taliban taking over. On the other hand, Afghanistan isn't called the Graveyard of Empires for nothing, and the last thing the US needs is to get involved in another drawn-out, money-sucking war.

Both wars combined were around $175 Billion/yr.. Obama deficits average about $1200 billion. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, a surge strategy worked to defeat the enemy militarily. Obama converted wins into losses by simply withdrawing. I think it is immoral. when the US went inot Afghanistan, there were 1 million children in schools. Now there are eight million, including three million girls. Guess what the Taliban is going to do?

I also support cutting US military spending, though I don't think it should be as drastic. Currently the US spends more on its military than any other country. In fact, I'd say the US spends a ridiculous amount of money on the military, making up nearly 40% of global militaristic spending.

If you believe that the US should not be a global power, then your conclusion is reasonable. If we want to be just like Belgium in world affairs, we can accomplish that. China has 10 million soldiers, so they can have East Asia. russia get back it's satellite. Iran gets the Middle East for starters. The US can defend North America. I have a problem with that. I don't think it is stable.

On this point, Obama absolutely should (and very likely won't) organise opposition to Russia. Obama has been one of the weakest presidents in US history.

Obama's vision is that it is unfair for the US to be stronger than china or Russia or Iran, let alone all three. He's got three years to pull it off.