Ukraine discussion

[BruceVC]

 

 

The world expects us to intervene all the time because we do. If we didn't; that expectation would disappear. Some people have accused Obama of being weak, but they're fools. It's not true, and even if Obama was "weak" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I'd rather be weak than broke. The level of military spending we do isn't sustainable, and I'd rather we get out of this terrible business of intervention sooner rather than later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good point raised about being "weak " rather than broke

 

But here is a consideration and its more about the humanitarian imperative. If you go back to the Rwanda genocide and a way through intervention that the  USA could have intervened militarily to prevent that would you say they should have ? And I don't mean boots on the ground, nowadays military intervention can be about airstrikes, drones and special forces like we have seen in Libya and the campaign against ISIS

 

So in other words the financial cost for the USA to prevent that type of genocide is relatively negligible

 

We live in a very flawed world, but it isn't our job to fix all the ills in the world; especially since our intervention tends to create new problems. I would not intervene in foreign affairs; even in cases of genocide. That would be beyond hypocritical considering our own history. 

 

We aren't the world's police. We don't have a right to dictate certain outcomes outside of our borders. Boycott is as far as we can ethically go in terms of shaping the world. I will not support anything beyond that.

 

 

Okay so you really feel that the most powerful and influential economic and military country in the world, that can intervene in a particular conflict to prevent something like a genocide, should just allow the genocide to happen?

 

What if USA economic interests were threatened in a conflict, so for example American corporations like oil companies would be effected if a conflict was allowed to continue. Would you support military intervention then because you are concerned with the economic impact ?

[Namutree]

 

We live in a very flawed world, but it isn't our job to fix all the ills in the world; especially since our intervention tends to create new problems. I would not intervene in foreign affairs; even in cases of genocide. That would be beyond hypocritical considering our own history. 

 

 

 

 

 

We aren't the world's police. We don't have a right to dictate certain outcomes outside of our borders. Boycott is as far as we can ethically go in terms of shaping the world. I will not support anything beyond that.

 

 

Okay so you really feel that the most powerful and influential economic and military country in the world, that can intervene in a particular conflict to prevent something like a genocide, should just allow the genocide to happen?

 

What if USA economic interests were threatened in a conflict, so for example American corporations like oil companies would be effected if a conflict was allowed to continue. Would you support military intervention then because you are concerned with the economic impact ?

 

The US should not be determining who wins and who loses in the world. Nor should we even have the worlds largest military. Why do we need it? It's just a big waste of resources. Even if it were free; it's unseemly for a capitalist country to have such a military. I would prefer that our military reflect our best ideals. We should never partake in the offensive use of force. If they don't attack us; we shouldn't attack them.

 

If the US's economic interest are in danger; oh well. Profit does not justify violence. I will not support any US action outside of our borders unless we have been attacked. I believe America can better influence the world by creating a good example to follow. Not that changing other countries is a concern of mine, but if we MUST do something; I'll take the peaceful route.

[BruceVC]

 

 

We live in a very flawed world, but it isn't our job to fix all the ills in the world; especially since our intervention tends to create new problems. I would not intervene in foreign affairs; even in cases of genocide. That would be beyond hypocritical considering our own history. 

 

 

 

 

 

We aren't the world's police. We don't have a right to dictate certain outcomes outside of our borders. Boycott is as far as we can ethically go in terms of shaping the world. I will not support anything beyond that.

 

 

Okay so you really feel that the most powerful and influential economic and military country in the world, that can intervene in a particular conflict to prevent something like a genocide, should just allow the genocide to happen?

 

What if USA economic interests were threatened in a conflict, so for example American corporations like oil companies would be effected if a conflict was allowed to continue. Would you support military intervention then because you are concerned with the economic impact ?

 

The US should not be determining who wins and who loses in the world. Nor should we even have the worlds largest military. Why do we need it? It's just a big waste of resources. Even if it were free; it's unseemly for a capitalist country to have such a military. I would prefer that our military reflect our best ideals. We should never partake in the offensive use of force. If they don't attack us; we shouldn't attack them.

 

If the US's economic interest are in danger; oh well. Profit does not justify violence. I will not support any US action outside of our borders unless we have been attacked. I believe America can better influence the world by creating a good example to follow. Not that changing other countries is a concern of mine, but if we MUST do something; I'll take the peaceful route.

 

 

You make some good points, I understand what you are saying even if I don't necessarily agree with it

[Volourn]

"The US should not be determining who wins and who loses in the world."
 

But, the Hitlers should? COME ON.

 

I'll remember that next time I see someone getting mugged when I'm walking down the street. None of my business, right? RIGHT?

[Namutree]

"The US should not be determining who wins and who loses in the world."

 

But, the Hitlers should? COME ON.

 

The Hitlers? Did some one make a bunch of Hitler clones? That's not good.

 

 

 

I'll remember that next time I see someone getting mugged when I'm walking down the street. None of my business, right? RIGHT?

I don't know what the expectations are for citizens in Canada, but here in the US a mugging is everyone's business. Not sure how that would apply to conflict between nations.

[BruceVC]

 

"The US should not be determining who wins and who loses in the world."

 

But, the Hitlers should? COME ON.

 

The Hitlers? Did some one make a bunch of Hitler clones? That's not good.

 

 

 

I'll remember that next time I see someone getting mugged when I'm walking down the street. None of my business, right? RIGHT?

I don't know what the expectations are for citizens in Canada, but here in the US a mugging is everyone's business. Not sure how that would apply to conflict between nations.

 

 

Funny enough I do share Volos view on this

 

The reality is we live in a world where despite the best intentions to want peace there are countries and organisation that believe a military option is the best way to achieve a certain result. And if you believe that then you need to accept that there are countries that will need to be prepared to intervene to prevent this. Now you may say "yes that's fine but the USA should only get involved militarily if we are attacked directly " but that's just not realistic if you think of the political alliances like NATO that the USA is involved in and its responsibilities to its partners in certain regions

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

 

Funny enough I do share Volos view on this

 

The reality is we live in a world where despite the best intentions to want peace there are countries and organisation that believe a military option is the best way to achieve a certain result. And if you believe that then you need to accept that there are countries that will need to be prepared to intervene to prevent this. Now you may say "yes that's fine but the USA should only get involved militarily if we are attacked directly " but that's just not realistic if you think of the political alliances like NATO that the USA is involved in and its responsibilities to its partners in certain regions

 

I'm well aware of our responsibilities to NATO. It's unfortunate that the US made the mistake of being involved in an alliance. We should get out of NATO.

 

If you think intervention is making the world more peaceful; you are simply wrong. Not that world peace should even be an agenda of ours.

 

Lucky for us Ukraine was not a full member of NATO and we are not obligated to get involved. I wish we would just stay out of it.

[Volourn]

"I don't know what the expectations are for citizens in Canada, but here in the US a mugging is everyone's business. Not sure how that would apply to conflict between nations."

 

Why is the mugging my business? I'm not the one being mugged.

 

Why should I care about Kuwait being invaded by Iraq? Not my business.

 

\Why should I care about a bunch of Jews being mass murdered all across Europe? Not my business.

 

Why should I care about the plight of Palestinians who are treated like trash by every country that sourrounds them? Not my business?

 

It's the reason why I care about someone being mugged, that's why. I hate when bad **** ahppens to people and if I have the power to stop it (even if that simply means called them evil coppers to come do their jobs) I'll do it. Obviously, I can't stop a bunch of Hitlers but I'm not going to cry when someone (the US) goes in and takes out a scumbag Saddam Hussein (though I'll criticize them for the  poor planning for the aftermath).

 

 

"The Hitlers? Did some one make a bunch of Hitler clones? That's not good."

 

There's certainly enough leaders who act like him. And, enough people who act liek the Nazis.

[obyknven]

http://youtu.be/PjC6UhAM16Y

[Walsingham]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny enough I do share Volos view on this

 

The reality is we live in a world where despite the best intentions to want peace there are countries and organisation that believe a military option is the best way to achieve a certain result. And if you believe that then you need to accept that there are countries that will need to be prepared to intervene to prevent this. Now you may say "yes that's fine but the USA should only get involved militarily if we are attacked directly " but that's just not realistic if you think of the political alliances like NATO that the USA is involved in and its responsibilities to its partners in certain regions

 

I'm well aware of our responsibilities to NATO. It's unfortunate that the US made the mistake of being involved in an alliance. We should get out of NATO.

 

If you think intervention is making the world more peaceful; you are simply wrong. Not that world peace should even be an agenda of ours.

 

Lucky for us Ukraine was not a full member of NATO and we are not obligated to get involved. I wish we would just stay out of it.

 

 

Utterly in awe of this post.

 

Why is NATO bad for the USA?

[Namutree]

 

I'm well aware of our responsibilities to NATO. It's unfortunate that the US made the mistake of being involved in an alliance. We should get out of NATO.

 

 

 

If you think intervention is making the world more peaceful; you are simply wrong. Not that world peace should even be an agenda of ours.

 

Lucky for us Ukraine was not a full member of NATO and we are not obligated to get involved. I wish we would just stay out of it.

 

 

Utterly in awe of this post.

 

Why is NATO bad for the USA?

 

Because it drags us into alliances. Those alliances drag us into conflicts. I want America to stop wasting it's resources on wars that don't involve us; NATO makes that very difficult. Also, the existence of NATO makes it easier for stupid war hawks to downplay the costs of war.

[Volourn]

Without those 'alliances' the US wouldn't be the most powerful country in the world which means they wouldn't be able to negogiate various deals from a position of strength.

[Namutree]

Without those 'alliances' the US wouldn't be the most powerful country in the world which means they wouldn't be able to negogiate various deals from a position of strength.

1) I don't care if the US is the most powerful nation of the world.

 

2) Most of the deals we make aren't even in our actual interest. Rather they are made to benefit regional power; which is made to make our military more effective. As I have already stated; I don't care about that.

 

If you are suggesting that our constant interventionism and massive military (Which is higher than the rest of the world combined) spending is helping us more than hurting us; you'd have to be crazy. 

[Sarex]

I'm afraid that you will not find sane answers in this thread. For most people in here things are painfully black and white, though it does help to illustrate why things are as they are in the world today.

[HoonDing]

Farage still raking in those euro millions.

[BruceVC]

I'm afraid that you will not find sane answers in this thread. .

 

Not at all, you just bitter because NATO bombed some sense into Serbia. But this prevented you guys from committing even more acts of genocide. You really don't  seem to appreciate what NATO did for your country, imagine what would have happened if the Bosnian war had been to allowed continue? Imagine how many additional Serbs would be facing war crimes in the Hague, trust me Sarex NATO did Serbia a favour by ending the war. It may not seem like it but  NATO intervention was the best long term strategy for stability of the whole region

[BruceVC]

 

Because it drags us into alliances. Those alliances drag us into conflicts. I want America to stop wasting it's resources on wars that don't involve us; NATO makes that very difficult. Also, the existence of NATO makes it easier for stupid war hawks to downplay the costs of war.

That's a very wrong statement. Do you know that the last NATO intervention was nearly 10 years ago? Do you know that most interventions by NATO was on the request of USA? How can you claim that NATO is forcing US to intervene when it's exactly the other way around?

 

 

No that's not true, the reality of NATO is that unless the USA gets involved in any NATO mission there is a lack of commitment and effectiveness. The UK and France do contribute but everyone basically expects the USA to contribute in military missions or they generally don't happen. Libya is an exception to this where once the USA destroyed Gaddafi's anti-aircraft defences it was the UK and France who did most of the airstrikes

 

So I do believe that NATO without the USA wouldn't be as prominent as it is now

[Zoraptor]

 

I'm afraid that you will not find sane answers in this thread. .

 

Not at all, you just bitter because NATO bombed some sense into Serbia. But this prevented you guys from committing even more acts of genocide. You really don't  seem to appreciate what NATO did for your country, imagine what would have happened if the Bosnian war had been to allowed continue? Imagine how many additional Serbs would be facing war crimes in the Hague, trust me Sarex NATO did Serbia a favour by ending the war. It may not seem like it but  NATO intervention was the best long term strategy for stability of the whole region

 

Trolling is bad enough but telling someone who may well have had friends or relatives 'liberated, from life' by your good friends in NATO and telling them that they should be grateful for it- again, and again, no less- is bad taste at best and is- absolutely- the definition of trolling for a response.

 

It's also boring, lazy and- sadly- utterly par for the course, for you.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I'm afraid that you will not find sane answers in this thread. .

 

Not at all, you just bitter because NATO bombed some sense into Serbia. But this prevented you guys from committing even more acts of genocide. You really don't  seem to appreciate what NATO did for your country, imagine what would have happened if the Bosnian war had been to allowed continue? Imagine how many additional Serbs would be facing war crimes in the Hague, trust me Sarex NATO did Serbia a favour by ending the war. It may not seem like it but  NATO intervention was the best long term strategy for stability of the whole region

 

Trolling is bad enough but telling someone who may well have had friends or relatives 'liberated, from life' by your good friends in NATO and telling them that they should be grateful for it- again, and again, no less- is bad taste at best and is- absolutely- the definition of trolling for a response.

 

It's also boring, lazy and- sadly- utterly par for the course, for you.

 

 

According to you it trolling because I don't echo your opinion

 

I have had numerous discussions with Sarex around politics  and he is definitely anti-Western and the root cause of this is the perceived treatment that Serbia received during the Bosnian war and Kosovo. Serbia wasn't singled out for military action because NATO was "anti-Serbia  " but because there was a valid reason due  to persistent Serbian aggression against the Bosniaks and Croats ( and yes the Croats and Bosniaks also committed war crimes  but not as many as the Serbs)

 

Sorry you don't like the facts around history but that's your problem really

 

I also take an issue with Sarex saying my opinion is insane because I am not agreeing that NATO is some aggressive organisation that pushes a Western agenda at the expense of  everything else

Edited September 22, 2014 by BruceVC

[Namutree]

 

That's a very wrong statement. Do you know that the last NATO intervention was nearly 10 years ago?

During this whole Ukraine situation more than a few people have invoked NATO as a justification for intervention.

 

 

 

 Do you know that most interventions by NATO was on the request of USA? How can you claim that NATO is forcing US to intervene when it's exactly the other way around?

 

I am aware. They are all examples of how our ability to call on allies for aid helps give us a pro-war bias. When debates go on in the US about our self-harming foreign policy; here are a few things one can expect to hear from the war hawks:

 

A) We need troops in Germany because of NATO.

 

B) We need to keep Russia in check because of NATO.

 

C) NATO will help us in our military operations with *insert country here* so don't worry about the costs!

[BruceVC]

 

 

That's a very wrong statement. Do you know that the last NATO intervention was nearly 10 years ago?

During this whole Ukraine situation more than a few people have invoked NATO as a justification for intervention.

 

 

Also the last NATO intervention as Libya, which was 3 years ago.

[obyknven]

Yesterday "Russian" "opposition" go to march of traitors peace in Moscow. Russians are happy, it's really funny.

As usually  in such events hired gastarbeiters play role of "Russian" or "Ukrainian" protesters.

 

Member of "Democratic" opposition: Main problem of Russia is 84 % of Russians.

 

"Russian" protesters can't into Russian language.

 

Gays-Exhibitionist's visit this march also.

 

Yep, these gopniks ( chavs ) is very different from stylish Western gays.  Probaly they are just hired posers.

 

Every march of peace must have flag of NATO military alliance.

 

Ukrainian girl: "You so angry because i'm not your girl"... ermm... do not want really, thanks.

 

Local citizens prepared streets of Moscow to this march also. Flags of Novorossiya everywhere.

 

Supporters of Novorossia visit this march also.

 

 

Novorossian supporters on BBC pic. KGB agent's everywhere.

 

 

Meanwhile Ukrainians dig symbolic fortifications somewhere in Ukraine.

 

Edited September 22, 2014 by obyknven

[Namutree]

But that's the fault of US officials not NATO that it is used as an excuse for US war likeness.

 

I know, but as long as the US is involved in NATO and other alliances the war hawks will always has a lot of ammunition to fool the apathetic public to going along with stupid wars. 

[Namutree]

 

Gays-Exhibitionist's visit this march also.

 

I'm all for gay rights, but I don't see what homosexuality has to do with Ukraine. Is this protest about more than just the Ukraine issue? I think protests are more effective when they are about a single issue.

[obyknven]

 

 

Gays-Exhibitionist's visit this march also.

 

I'm all for gay rights, but I don't see what homosexuality has to do with Ukraine. Is this protest about more than just the Ukraine issue? I think protests are more effective when they are about a single issue.

 

This is classic Cargo-cult. "Opposition" portray yourself as "civilized Europeans" and copypaste European trappings without understanding of European culture. They trying to say - look at us -we democratic and civilized people, we even have gays, give moar money for us. Such "savage" behavior can't cause nothing except giggling from members of quite advanced spacefaring Russian civilisation. This  show is not for Russians but for Western sponsors instead, be a opposition is good business in Russia.

 

P.S. I think these two boys even not gays, they too   during kissing and have appearance of ordinary gopnics,  it's look like organisators  just hire them for performance.