| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
Rocket, That is a valid opinion that Russia might not initially invade the new NATO member countries but guys in power (of all stripes) have a way creating international incidents. I read an interesting letter this morning where the author suggested that Russia should have attempted to purchase Crimea. That is the method the US acquired Manhattan from the Indians, the Louisiana Purchase from the French, and Alaska from the ,ahem, Russians. Interesting thought but Crimea is ancient history. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I heard a bloke on TV this morning stating Gorbachev gave just about anything he was asked of. As a consequence NATO rolled into eastern Europe. Putin is not so soft. Nor is he wanting or needing to cosy up to the west like Gorbachev wanted to. Times have changed, as have Russia's borders. But we have to ask ourselves what the west's motives are in this. We constantly hear of Putin's desire to come to a working peaceful solution, and we hear how the US is adamant Putin must move his military build up away from the border (inside Russia). Accept Crimea was annexed illegally (to what end now who knows??), and accept Ukraine, both west and east can be free to engage in any business it pleases from any (western) government. Including the presence of more NATO troops (obviously including US troops). I'm just wondering. Apart from keeping the evil Putin as far east as possible, and prodding him with a sharp stick at the same time. Could someone explain to me what benefits this arrogant western bullying of Putin and Russia will bring us? For sure, more expensive, as opposed to cheaper, gas, if gas can be had. Rocket in England | ||
| Fredfast |
" I do NOT support the overstepping of the Federal Government into what are State's right issues." Those issues were defeated in the Civil War. The Union won, remember. | ||
| Macbuell |
Those issues were defeated in the Civil War. The Union won, remember. No they weren't. All that proved was that states cannot seced from the Union without the Federal Government's approval. Or that the Federal Government can and will take actions to preserve the Union. The Civil War didn't rewrite the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. | ||
| Fredfast |
"Or that the Federal Government can and will take actions to preserve the Union." You said it. I didn't | ||
| Reindog |
Apparently, some people slept through their Civics class nor have read the Constitution of the United States of America. A severely uninformed citizenry is one of the reasons our country is in bad shape, but we are getting off topic. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo said..."I would like to see a more local/European solution" Why then, are you bitching so much on this board about what Obama is not doing then???? Do you not recognize your own hypocrisy??? You are a smart guy I am assuming. The best solution you have is no solution so far. Ten words, thats your fix for Russian expansionism. Perhaps you could explain how you would you like to see a local or European solution to the Ukrainian crisis. Please elaborate with some detail. Maybe you could suggest what countries would be involved. Would there be any sort of military intervention? How would European natural gas lines be protected? How many people might die? How will the world economy be affected? You should take the time to read this link... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/20 13/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-abou t-the-defense-budget-in-charts/ The biggest surprise to me is that U.S. military spending is very cyclical. Prior to war and during war, military budgets go up and after wars military budgets go down. I'm not sure what bone you have to pick about current military spending, it has gone up and down through U.S. history before. 20% of the U.S. national budget is presently spent on military spending. How much more do you want Obama to spend on the military before you will be content? 25%??? 30%??? I thought you guys were about less taxes. Do you really want to spend more tax dollars on the military Sifo??? If you feel so compelled about it, you should stop posting on a Buell board and start canvasing your neighbours with a petition to send to Washington. "SIFO WANTS MORE MILITARY SPENDING. OBAMA'S NOT SPENDING ENOUGH" OK. I'm not clear how you take my comment about wanting a more "local/European" solution to mean I want more/bigger spending on the US military. Even in the context of the entire post that came from, I'm not looking for more US military involvement in the world. Far from it. If Europe would do it's part, instead of being reliant on the US as the world police, the US wouldn't need as much military spending. Strange launching point for your rant. | ||
| Macbuell |
You said it. I didn't Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Your lack of understanding on even simple concepts is really astounding. | ||
| Aesquire |
How much military spending? 50%. Less than this year in dollars but that percentage. Many people believe we spend 65% or more. They have been lied to. The real number is about 30%. I doubt anyone here wants military intervention. We bitch about Obama because he threatens and then threatens again. That is stupid. Arrogant. Foolish. If you must draw a line in the sand there better be a directional mine under it. Far better to get cooperation or a credible reason why the aggressor should not attack. As to Obama taking advice from the best & brightest. ...... no sign of that. His advisers are blinded by ideology and wishful thinking imnsho. He doesn't go to security briefings perhaps because he believes he knows best. No respect for military advice. | ||
| Fredfast |
"Your lack of understanding on even simple concepts is really astounding." Enlighten me Master. You must be a student of Courts Ivy League class. Every region in the country has a Federal District Court to interpret the law of the land (yes even the Constitution Mad Dog). They are the final authority when legislation, passed by the state, is being challenged. Follow the recent court challenge to the Texas abortion law. The point being that the Federal justice system has the right to overturn any state law that it deems "unconstitutional" or illegal. Texas would probably ban abortion if they could. The point is that, although getting more difficult, abortion is still legal in Texas. States rights is trumped by federal law. | ||
| Sifo |
Your lack of understanding on even simple concepts is really astounding. You may notice that many have come to ignore FredFrank. Your observation is just one reason. | ||
| Reindog |
Don't Feed the Troll. {F/F,F} is here under false pretenses. Ignore him. | ||
| Swampy |
What happened to the youtube video of the russians shooting the unarmed Ukranian protesters? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
My Friend Miki has left the building - she went back to Ukraine over the weekend. Her and her family are arming, and they are ready to do what it takes to keep the b@stards out.... AK's vs tanks - not good odds - but then again .... Afghanistan we about the same. She is a fiesty bit of trouble - Stay outta Donetsk | ||
| Aesquire |
Could someone explain to me what benefits this arrogant western bullying of Putin and Russia will bring us? I can't speak to any NATO Imperial ambitions. I don't know a thing about how you Evil murderous Europeans are planning to attack Russia. ( Although I'm quite curious about what you will use. I was under the Impression that the only folk in that region with a clue on how to actually fight were the Brits, and the French ( just counting Captains & lower rank, French Generals are not a threat to anyone but France ) ) I can say the bluster & threats from Obama are a problem. I actually appreciate the idea of targeting the elite in Russia, instead of the country as a whole. The trouble is Obama doesn't seem competent to accomplish his stated goals. It's not like he's a pacifist. He plays to them, but he's not at all shy about ordering people killed. That too bothers me more than a little, since he has claimed the power to murder Americans as well as Taliban. One of my least favorite politicians, Lyndon B. Johnson once bragged about his micromanagement of the Vietnam war, "they can't bomb an outhouse without my permission". Obama has bragged that he personally choses who is killed in drone attacks. Thanks for the Russian view Rocket. Good luck on Airstrip One. RE: US/UK WW2. Consider that when WW2 started the US army was ( IIRC ) 34th most powerful. Poland had more troops, and better equipped. The war games of 1939 had trucks with "tank" painted on the side, and logs were used to simulate artillery. Without the use of the British Isles we would not have had a bomber capable of reaching Germany until mid-late 1940's. The B-29 couldn't have gone from Maine to Berlin with a useful bomb load. The Army Air Corps started planning for a transcontinental bomber in 1940 or so, and eventually the B-36 was the result, but it wasn't ready until after 1945, and the engines for it not until then. The war in the Pacific without Australia? Much longer & harder. It is debatable if the US would have pushed the Manhattan Project as hard as it did if we had not been afraid Germany was working on it's own A-bomb. And the planes to deliver it. The good news for the USA was the German "b" bomber program never made a production transcontinental bomber, although a few converted passenger planes had the capacity for limited strikes. The "b" bomber program failed because even though multiple companies made different prototypes, the engine they were designed for never made it into production. In a couple of cases the designers of useless 2 engine planes pleaded to use 4 existing engines, but the High Command refused. Ironically, one of the best bombers of the war came about nearly the same way. The Avro Manchester was a 2 engine plane designed around engines that didn't produce the promised power, or ran with any reliability. Avro ( with much begging yelling and tantrums all around ) got permission to use 4 RR Merlin engines, created the Lancaster, and the rest, as they say, is History. BTW the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum is planning to fly one of only 2 flying Lancasters to England this year to meet it's only flying brother and do the airshow circuit in England. A lucky few will get rides. ( they are not cheap ) http://www.warplane.com/ | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I think you missed my point. Simply..... The words coming out of Russia tell of their want to settle the situation diplomatically. They go far enough, tell in great detail, of their position with a powder keg Crimea. Russia tells of an economic deal offered and accepted by Ukraine's elected government trumping a deal the EU offered. Within hours the known to be corrupt but elected government is run out of town. Soon after a non elected government is installed and recognised by EU, UK, and US. In response to Ukraine's unelected government being recognised by the west, Russia acts quickly to preserve their geopolitical interests in Crimea. This brought about by Crimean's holding a quickly organised referendum where 84% of a 97% turnout vote in favour of secession from Ukraine in favour of annexation (a return) to Russia. This act claimed by the west to be illegal by international law. US, UK, EU, puts some sanctions in place. Mainly against Russian individuals, including the freezing of assets and financial accounts. Russia continues to put its case forward openly with strong argument toward concerns of NATO ring-fencing Russia's western border. The west economically manipulating not just Ukraine but other eastern European nations. Crimea being Russia's age old Black Sea fleet base, of which it has paid Ukraine massively for, and in advance for a few more decades, could have been 'lost' if part of an in favour European Ukraine. Then we get to the US. All the US tell of is how wrong and how illegal Russia's actions have been since Ukraine fell into the hands of an unelected and (in part) installed and supported by the west temporary government. That and the US's claim Russia is wanting or about to invade and claim Russian territories of old, despite no evidence of such. The US demand Russia remove a build up of military at her own border to Ukraine. This before they'll consider entering into negotiation toward a settlement for peace and economic stability in Ukraine. US meanwhile tell of their support to an increased build up of NATO forces throughout eastern Europe. I ask again. Can anyone tell me what the US's interest in Ukraine really are, seeing as the US's excuse appears to be to thwart any Russian advancement into eastern Europe. A certain irony if ever I heard of one considering the wests meddling in eastern Europe, and in particular Ukraine, is what kicked this crap off in the first place. As I said a couple of weeks ago. I'm all ears. So come on America. Come clean and tell us what you're really up to. Rocket in England (Message edited by rocket_in_uk on April 01, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
Asking the wrong guys. We keep telling you we have, as has every representative government, ever, gotten stuck with idiots running the show. Rome had it's Caligula's, I'll leave you to pick England's greatest losers, and we've got a guy who Campaigned well, but is...... Damn. And his #2 guy is called "Just Joe" to excuse the fact that he says the most stupid things. ( Although the selected quotes of Dan Quayle are pretty funny. Another real winner #2 guy ) We don't have a clue what this bozo is up to. That said, I'm also inclined to doubt the Russian level of credibility. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Putting aside whether Russia have credibility or not. The amount of news appears to indicate a much much more transparent Russia. A Russia which has put its case forward well (if they are to be believed). US (NATO) on the other hand seem to be taking the stance, we are in this to defend Europe against an aggressive Russia (despite there being not a shred of evidence to prove such). Yet not once has the US told of their interests in Ukraine that would prove beyond doubt their involvement is fair and just. The clarity of such (if it were to come) proving such. What we see instead is Obama and Kerry banging on about nasty Russia (they might be), US therefore building up NATO in readiness for...... So the facts show, US (NATO) is the expansionist and has been for the past 20 years. Russia, accused of expansionist ideals, annexing Crimea and mobilising military in her own country along her western border, has desires to reclaim most of eastern Europe. Now I might be asking the 'wrong' people, but is it not obvious to anyone when it takes nothing more than common sense to understand what's happening? No one taking a moments interest to summarise the events could see it any different. Political understanding isn't necessary to work it out. Is there no one in 600 posts  able to champion what should be a benevolent liberal US when engaged in eastern European politics? Rocket in England | ||
| Brumbear |
what do ya know | ||
| Geedee |
HOW MUCH WAR DOES WASHINGTON WANT? Paul Craig Roberts Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has been reporting on executive branch and cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades, and has written or co-written eight books, and has published many articles in journals of scholarship. "But Washington cares not for democracy, only for its agenda. And Russia, China, and Iran are in the way. The neoconservatives, who have controlled US foreign policy since the Clinton regime, concluded that the Soviet collapse meant that History has chosen America as the socio-economic system for the world. They declared the US to be “exceptional” and “indispensable” and above international law. Washington had a free pass to invade, murder, destroy, and dominate. The neoconservative claims of “American exceptionalism” sound like Hitler’s claims for the German nation. When the White House sock puppet expressed in a speech the claim of American exceptionalism, Putin replied: “God made us all equal.” Washington’s opinion is that the exceptional and indispensable nation–the US–is above not only all other nations but also above law. What Washington does is legal. What anyone else does in opposition is illegal. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/03/29/how-muc h-war-does-washington-want/ As George Washington so aptly stated, “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with as little political connection as possible... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” By restricting congress to declaring war and not allowing it to send foreign aid to any foreign government, the United States government can be on the best terms it could be with all nations. (Message edited by Geedee on April 01, 2014) | ||
| Brumbear |
IMO a troop build up is called for, just in case the Puty plan does include more. We have an obligation to our Allies simply put. I think Russia took what it needed, anything more will be what it wants and thats not gonna float. However I have little faith in my government to orchestrate this properly. | ||
| Sifo |
US (NATO) on the other hand seem to be taking the stance, we are in this to defend Europe against an aggressive Russia (despite there being not a shred of evidence to prove such). Sure, no proof at all. At least none beyond occupying sovereign countries. Putting that aside though, no proof at all. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Sure, no proof at all. At least none beyond occupying sovereign countries. Putting that aside though, no proof at all. Inj the context of my post, The amount of news appears to indicate a much much more transparent Russia. A Russia which has put its case forward well (if they are to be believed). US (NATO) on the other hand seem to be taking the stance, we are in this to defend Europe against an aggressive Russia (despite there being not a shred of evidence to prove such). Yet not once has the US told of their interests in Ukraine that would prove beyond doubt their involvement is fair and just. The clarity of such (if it were to come) proving such So yes, no proof at all as I've yet to see the US tell what it is they're doing in Ukraine apart from shitting on Ukraine Russian deal, thus provoking Crimea, leading to a defensive Russian strategy on her western border against a NATO build up threat from Obama. Please do point me to some proof though, if you have any, or know where it exists. As I said before, I'm all ears. Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
Rocket, Perhaps you could explain exactly what you think the US involvement in Ukraine is. Honestly, I have no idea what was done that justifies Russian occupation. NONE! | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Rocket, Perhaps you could explain exactly what you think the US involvement in Ukraine is. Urgh, wasn't I the one asking for such clarity as to WTF the US is doing in Ukraine?? Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
That makes all of us. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
No Patrick. I'm pretty sure the majority here, who appear to represent a lot of American's, believe the US are in Ukraine to defend Europe against and aggressive Russian land grab said not to stop at Crimea but continue into Ukraine. Then Estonia, Latvia, etc etc. I'm pretty sure that's the way it's been bought and sold to America. Russia is on the march and their leader Putin is an evil warmonger and a bloody fantastic liar. Oh, and that he's very very good at making speeches which are nothing short of great lectures full of propaganda, Obama wishes he was as great at giving, so to embrace his own nations peoples. Yeah, pretty sure that's it. The fecking Russian dirty stinking twats. Well it is Wednesday  Have they found that plane yet? Tweedledum. Tweedledee. Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
Really, it's the better abs that Obama is jealous of. Now the US is in Ukraine? WTF? Other than the poor destroyer sent by incompetents to be a "show of force" against the entire Russian Southern Fleet.... | ||
| Sifo |
Urgh, wasn't I the one asking for such clarity as to WTF the US is doing in Ukraine?? Well, you keep asking what we think the US should be doing in our opinion. I keep saying the US should leave it up to Europe. It's a shame that Europe seems to want to turn a blind eye to it. You also keep claiming that the Russians are reacting to what the US is doing. That's what I'm asking you about. What do you think the US is doing that the Russians are reacting to? (Message edited by SIFO on April 02, 2014) (Message edited by SIFO on April 02, 2014) | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I thought USA was in Ukraine to stand behind a country that wants freedom and democracy. What do the Ukrainian government want? What do the Ukrainian people want? Whatever they want we will stand behind them. They are not the aggressors. |
