| Author | Message | ||
     Cityxslicker |
over 300 sovereign Chinese Entities on domestic US soil..... we are already their bitch. when you cant pay the bill - they will take property... and when property no longer makes sense, they will take labor watch and learn wait and see | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I believe in taking care of your own and if that means someone has to suffer so that we don't - so be it. Nice. I'm more of a humanist than a patriot and don't believe anyone should have to suffer. Certainly not in the name of my country so it can thrive whilst another should suffer for it doing so. Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
On the topic of the RT (Russian Today) news network... Video: RT Anchor Quits On Air
Sounds a lot like MSNBC. | ||
| Reindog |
Hitler decries that the Germanic people living in the Sudetenland, which is a part of Czechoslovakia, are threatened by the Czech government. Afterwards, Europe fails to act and cedes the Sudetenland via the Munich Agreement. The German Army moves in and annexes this territory to the burgeoning Third Reich. World War II starts a year later after this aggression for territorial expansion is not punished. Oops, wrong story. Most terribly sorry. Please forgive me because I must be a racist.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Consider that annexing territory settled by Russian speaking folk means NYC is a logical target. Bet the Mayor would give a parade. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Let the people of that area decide. Looks like that will happen in 10 days. Link Crimea lawmakers schedule vote on joining Russia AP | By YURAS KARMANAU And TIM SULLIVAN Published March 6, 2014 11:18AM EST SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine (AP) — Lawmakers in Crimea declared their intention Thursday to split from Ukraine and join Russia instead, and scheduled a referendum in 10 days for voters to decide the fate of the disputed peninsula. Russian lawmakers, clearly savoring the action, said that if Crimea votes to become part of Russia, they plan to vote on legislation that would speed up the procedure of making that happen. The Obama administration slapped new visa restrictions against pro-Russian opponents to the new Ukraine government in Kiev, and cleared the way for upcoming financial sanctions, as the West began punishing Moscow for refusing to withdraw its troops from the strategic region that also houses Russia's Black Sea fleet. Ukraine's prime minister said the Crimean lawmakers' decision is illegitimate, and a European Union official warned that results of any referendum will not be recognized by the West. The 100-seat parliament in Crimea, which enjoys a degree of autonomy under current Ukrainian law, voted 78-0, with eight abstentions in favor joining Russia and for holding the referendum on March 16. Local voters will also be given the choice of deciding to remain part of Ukraine, but with enhanced local powers. "This is our response to the disorder and lawlessness in Kiev," said Sergei Shuvainikov, a member of the local Crimean legislature. "We will decide our future ourselves." In Moscow, a prominent member of Russia's parliament, Sergei Mironov, said he has proposed a bill that would simplify the procedure for Crimea to join Russia, the state news agency ITAR-Tass reported. However, another senior lawmaker, Leonid Slutsky, said Russia's parliament could only consider such a motion after Crimea's referendum. A senior Western diplomat said that the EU leaders, meeting in Brussels to discuss their response to Moscow's move, "will send a clear message that the referendum won't be recognized." The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't allowed to discuss the leaders' closed-door talks publicly. On Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin said Russia had no intention of annexing Crimea, while insisting its population has the right to determine the region's status in a referendum. Putin called a meeting of his Security Council on Thursday to discuss Ukraine. A referendum had previously been scheduled in Crimea on March 30, but the question to be put to voters was on whether their region should enjoy "state autonomy" within Ukraine. Crimea's new leader has said pro-Russian forces numbering more than 11,000 now control all access to the peninsula in the Black Sea and have blockaded all military bases that have not yet surrendered Remaining bits in link if you feel so moved to read. | ||
| Sifo |
So, fact check me on this stuff. Russia invaded Georgia. From what I can tell, Europe did nothing. The US put up sanctions on Russia, which were suspended as part of the Obama "reset". Russia now invaded part of Ukraine. Europe is doing nothing. The US is doing nothing. I think that even a poor student of history can see where this is going. I'd really like to hear from our European members on this. What's the local take on this? Am I simply missing what the European response is? | ||
| Sifo |
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine (AP) — Lawmakers in Crimea declared their intention Thursday to split from Ukraine and join Russia instead, and scheduled a referendum in 10 days for voters to decide the fate of the disputed peninsula. Can we really expect a fair vote to happen in this newly occupied territory? Color me skeptical, but when and invading force moves in, and there is suddenly a previously unscheduled vote on if they should stay an occupied territory, I just have to question if there will be a fair vote, never mind the implied threat of having their energy cut off if they vote Russia out. It's not exactly an uncoerced vote. | ||
| Reindog |
Kinda like a Chicago vote, you know, Bam's home town. | ||
| Sifo |
Are they allowing the dead to vote there too? | ||
| Reindog |
From the Daily Mail. Flashback: Senator Obama pushed bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine * Obama traveled to Ukraine with Sen. Dick Lugar in 2005 just seven months after he became a senator, touring surplus weapons stockpiles * Most of the small arms and ammunition were left over when Soviets withdrew from Eastern bloc nations, and later dumped in Ukraine * The two senators secured U.S. funding to help destroy the weapons instead of leaving them intact * Ukraine exported more than 700,000 small arms in 2004-2007, including 101,000 each to Libya and the UK, and 260,000 to the U.S. * But most of the ammunition stockpiles – crucial for keeping a standing army battle-ready – were destroyed * Ukraine is in a staring match with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has designs on recapturing portions of the former Soviet nation  Caption: Then-Senator Barack Obama inspected decommissioned artillery shells in a warehouse in Donetsk, Ukraine, and argued that Congress should allocate money to speed up the destruction of thousands of tons more source: Article here. | ||
| Reepicheep |
And for the record, a CZ-52 is a very nice shooter for the price. Upgrade the firing pin though. | ||
| Fahren |
Think of all those Mosin Nagants, too....... | ||
| Strokizator |
Shouldn't be long before the hispanic people in California hold a similar referendum. I just don't know which country they'll want to to join though - Mexico is a mess. | ||
| Trojan |
Shouldn't be long before the hispanic people in California hold a similar referendum. And if the majority voted to join Mexico, would the US resist sending troops in to 'protect' their citizens? People forget that Crimea is as Russian as Moscow and strong Vodka. It is only part of the Ukraine because of an administrative stroke of a pen during the Soviet era when Ukraine was also part of Russia. The vote won't have to be rigged because the majority who live there are either ethnic Russian or Russian citizens anyway. Separating the Crimea, either as a Russian state or an independant state, is probably the ONLY way to get out of this mess without starting a war unfortunately. | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Sifo |
Shouldn't be long before the hispanic people in California hold a similar referendum. And if the majority voted to join Mexico, would the US resist sending troops in to 'protect' their citizens? People forget that Crimea is as Russian as Moscow and strong Vodka. It is only part of the Ukraine because of an administrative stroke of a pen during the Soviet era when Ukraine was also part of Russia. The vote won't have to be rigged because the majority who live there are either ethnic Russian or Russian citizens anyway. Separating the Crimea, either as a Russian state or an independant state, is probably the ONLY way to get out of this mess without starting a war unfortunately. There are several issues with this hypothetical. Crimea is NOT currently a Russian territory. California IS a US territory. The vote in Crimea has been prompted by the Russian invasion. They hypothetical vote in California was California's choice. The citizens of Crimea are NOT Russian citizens. The citizens of California ARE US citizens. Now had your hypothetical involved Mexico invading California and forcing a vote of becoming part of Mexico, then it would make perfect sense for the US to use force against Mexico. That hypothetical is much closer to what is going on in Crimea right now. Russia is doing what tyrants do. When does the world stand up to the tyrant? Apparently, if you are Europe, that answer is when it's too late to prevent slaughter on a grand scale. | ||
| Reindog |
It is 1938 all over again. The appeasement crowd will go to any length to justify the actions of a despot. After all, the despot will stop if the West debates him and he sees the great mistake that he has just made. After all, this isn't the 19th century anymore. | ||
| Trojan |
Apparently, if you are Europe, that answer is when it's too late to prevent slaughter on a grand scale. Oh dear, don't lets start that argument about standing up to tyrants. I think the 20th century history kind of showed Europe having to stand alone against tyrants for a long time. In both world wars Russia paid the highest price in terms of deaths and territorial damage fighting nazis and German Imperialism, so I understand why they are twitchy about their borders and 'buffer zones'. Whatever way we look at it, the majority of people in the Crimea are pro Russian anyway, so why not let them break away peacefully? What is the alternative really? | ||
| Sifo |
so why not let them break away peacefully? By "peacefully", do you mean at gun point after being invaded by a foreign power? I see that as a strange example of "peacefully"! Do you expect it to end there? Did you expect it to end after Georgia? Where do you expect it to end? I'm really curious. | ||
| Reindog |
Say goodbye to Scotland. Estonia was forced into the Soviet Union where Russians immigrated against the Estonian people's wishes. Now there is a sizable Russian population in Estonia. Even though Estonia is part of the EU, it is not unimaginable for Russia to stoke unrest and come to the "aid" of the oppressed Russians. What say you then? When does appeasement stop? BTW, I have a lot of Estonian friends who would not buy you a beer (to put it nicely) if the Crimean justification was thrown in their face. Yes, it really is starting to look like 1938 again. I hope I am wrong but I doubt Russian aggression is going to stop in the Crimea in the face of the spinelessness of the West. The Annexation of Crimea was entirely avoidable if we had a strong US President in office. | ||
| Aesquire |
Reminds me of the English settlements in Ireland. Not the same. ...... but the Russians learned a lot from the British Empire. | ||
| Sifo |
Putin is wanting the old Russia back. They weren't' know as nice players. He has let it be known that he wants to rebuild the Russian empire. How are empires built? I would personally answer that, "with a lot of blood". The more emboldened and powerful you let a bully become, the more painful it becomes to put a stop to their bullying. I'm not saying it's time for a full on war with Russia at this point, but I'm sure not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that this is "peaceful". | ||
| Sifo |
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/07/putin-b rushes-aside-obama-warnings-as-us-moves-to-counter -russia/ I find myself in the unusual situation where I actually think that BO is on the right side of an issue for once. I guess a stopped clock is right twice a day, BO can be right once in history. I do have a real issue with the US taking on Russia unilaterally though. If Europe isn't with us, then forget it. Make the point clear that Putin is in the wrong, and that when he steps on our direct interests, we will then respond with strength. Also make it clear to Europe, if they are willing to toss their own to Russia, they should expect us to leave to themselves to defend themselves when the time comes. Do not depend on the NATO treaty as the way to get the US to help them tomorrow if they are letting a fire burn in their backyard today. It's possible that I've got the wrong take on European leaders in this, but I'm not seeing it in our news over here. I'm not hearing it from our BadWeb members over there either. I actually WANT to be wrong about this. | ||
| Aesquire |
Barry could be doing ok? Time will tell. I DO want to hear more from the European folk. US news doesn't cover anything not on fire in Europe. The "media" is mostly leftist isolationist types heavily influenced by Soviet loving teachers. The Soviets loved us to be isolationist. You could do a whole book on the concept of "war weary". | ||
| Blake |
The recent vacuum of leadership, strength, and principles upheld from the free world opens the door for the bad actors in the oppressed world to fill the void. Venezuela Iran N. Korea China Russia... The world may be fixin' to burn, but we have Obamacare. | ||
| Sifo |
Barry could be doing ok? Time will tell. Perhaps. I agree with Blake that there is a vacuum of leadership. Part of that falls on BO. Part of that falls on Europe's leaders. Nature abhors a vacuum. I'm not sure I agree with moving military equipment yet. I'm not sure who he's trying to impress/threaten. Shuffling a few dozen airplanes isn't likely to threaten Putin. It may prompt Putin to prove he's not threatened. You better have your world leaders lined up when you make moves that could be WW III. We aren't looking at bombing Libya this time. Russia can hit back. NATO, I believe would be within their rights to not help out too, if we are the aggressors, not a victim. The ONLY thing I've heard about European leaders on this is that BO talked to Merkle a couple of days ago. That's days late, and I didn't hear of anything productive from it. I would feel much better if someone would simply point out my ignorance on what's being done. So far I hear crickets chirping. I don't think the crickets will help. | ||
| Reindog |
How the Ukraine crisis ends By Henry A. Kissinger, Published: March 5 Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins. Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them. Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States. The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia. The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities. The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system. Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanukovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction. Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one. Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers. Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides: 1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe. 2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up. 3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia. 4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol. These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough. source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissi nger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end /2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_s tory.html | ||
| Brumbear |
Apparently, if you are Europe, that answer is when it's too late to prevent slaughter on a grand scale. Oh dear, don't lets start that argument about standing up to tyrants. I think the 20th century history kind of showed Europe having to stand alone against tyrants for a long time. In both world wars Russia paid the highest price in terms of deaths and territorial damage fighting nazis and German Imperialism, so I understand why they are twitchy about their borders and 'buffer zones'. Whatever way we look at it, the majority of people in the Crimea are pro Russian anyway, so why not let them break away peacefully? What is the alternative really? Good points I think a little differently but it's all good. Why not, well finances I would think, The new Uke Government should be getting a little funding for there troubles is probably how they see it. The whole WWII thing IDK I think uncle Joe was probably not to twitchy or thinking that way in Oct of 39 when the Soviet Union was splittin chips in Poland and after smakin the Japanese around a bit and having a go at Finland. They did however pay a huge price. The alternative is unfortunately diplomacy and that well that aint worth a shyt of late so we will see.} | ||
| Aesquire |
My opinion of the State dept. is pretty low no matter who sits in the White House........since WW2. I am sure many people in & out of State share the sentiment so charmingly voiced by an O appointee and to be sure those comments were not meant for public consumption. The arrogance of this administration about the NSA spying are IMHO the reason that comment was released and that has not helped matters. I don't see a change in "policy" coming soon out of DC on this (except I expect Snowden to never walk unafraid outside Russian or Chinese protection ) and expect the EU to play a waiting game for Obama to leave and prepare to publicly despise the next US Prez. What I do not know is if they have that time. |
