Ukraine

you "would" implies you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is -- ergo -- your talk the talk but unwilling to walk the walk

That nonsense is old.

Neither Russia or China wants a World War -- it is bad for business.
When you have a uniform on or children wearing uniforms -- then come swaggering around baseball message boards flaunting your masculinity and penchant for war.

edit:
let me change --you "would" implies--
to
you "would" states/shouts / hollers / means you have no intention to -- instead of implies
 
Krgrecw said:
Yeah. I would.

Question for you? How many more lives would had been saved if hitler was attacked shortly after he started attacking Europe versus when we finally went in on dday?

Hundreds of millions?

What liberals can't comprehend is if we don't confront Russia why would China not pull the same **** and take over the little islands? They see America as weak.
Click to expand...

I'm just speculating here, but I would imagine it's for the same reason Repubs acted like it wasn't a big deal back in 2008 when the same ahole Putin took Georgia. Of course that's just a guess on my part.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
I'm just speculating here, but I would imagine it's for the same reason Repubs acted like it wasn't a big deal back in 2008 when the same ahole Putin took Georgia. Of course that's just a guess on my part.
Click to expand...

To be fair some were upset. But they werne't calling bush a coward or anything. Obama's only gotten us in one illegal war, not 2 like bushy. If Obama had the nuts he would have invaded syria then they would have had his back on the Ukraine.

Also I really think overall it's an interesting gambit by Putin. You'll see most other Eastern Bloc countries not let Russia set up treaties like they did in Crimea.
 
zitothebrave said:
To be fair some were upset. But they werne't calling bush a coward or anything. Obama's only gotten us in one illegal war, not 2 like bushy. If Obama had the nuts he would have invaded syria then they would have had his back on the Ukraine.

Also I really think overall it's an interesting gambit by Putin. You'll see most other Eastern Bloc countries not let Russia set up treaties like they did in Crimea.
Click to expand...

Well to also be fair, there wouldn't have been anything bushy could have done about it either, short of going to war and that wasn't and isn't going to happen then or now. I found a good article on it that pretty much sums up politics in America, this time it was the Repubs doing it, now it's the Dems. I may try and post some of it tomorrow when and if I have time. The long story short version is the one (I assume) where Sarah Palin was saying if Obama was elected Putin was be going after the Ukraine next, and of then 6 years later she was right. The thing that pisses me off beyond imagination is she and the other Repubs who had anything to say about it at the time totally ignored what the Repubs didn't do about Georgia in '08 and threatened the nation if they dared to upset the Repub puppet masters by electing a useless Dem instead of the current pattern (at that time) of electing a useless Repub. I really try not to get into these little partisan pissing matches but I'm just to a point where I've had all the selective truth and selective morality I can handle. Maybe this will get it out of my system for a little while longer.

By the way the story I refer to sounded a WHOLE LOT like a post made one of our own Repub mainstays about a week or so ago. Essentially "I don't care what the sitting president at the did/didn't do about the Russian invasion that was going on right then, I care about what future Russian invasion might happen years in the future if we were stupid enough to put in someone from the other party who might wind up being as useless as the guys from the "competent" political party".

And some people still wonder why we're crashing burning so fast.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Well to also be fair, there wouldn't have been anything bushy could have done about it either, short of going to war and that wasn't and isn't going to happen then or now. I found a good article on it that pretty much sums up politics in America, this time it was the Repubs doing it, now it's the Dems. I may try and post some of it tomorrow when and if I have time. The long story short version is the one (I assume) where Sarah Palin was saying if Obama was elected Putin was be going after the Ukraine next, and of then 6 years later she was right. The thing that pisses me off beyond imagination is she and the other Repubs who had anything to say about it at the time totally ignored what the Repubs didn't do about Georgia in '08 and threatened the nation if they dared to upset the Repub puppet masters by electing a useless Dem instead of the current pattern (at that time) of electing a useless Repub. I really try not to get into these little partisan pissing matches but I'm just to a point where I've had all the selective truth and selective morality I can handle. Maybe this will get it out of my system for a little while longer.

By the way the story I refer to sounded a WHOLE LOT like a post made one of our own Repub mainstays about a week or so ago. Essentially "I don't care what the sitting president at the did/didn't do about the Russian invasion that was going on right then, I care about what future Russian invasion might happen years in the future if we were stupid enough to put in someone from the other party who might wind up being as useless as the guys from the "competent" political party".

And some people still wonder why we're crashing burning so fast.
Click to expand...

simple we have sheep Dummicrats

and we have sheep Repukekans

both parties are stupid, their ideas are stupid, basically they are stupid and we have people on this board from Sav to Tap, to Steak Sauce to KCGrew who blindly follow their stupid principles NO MATTER WHAT. If Obama ask 57 to jump, he would say yes and how high and ask to kiss his ass, I don' think Sav would do everything but he would jump, just as Bush would ask KC to jump, he would but I don't he would kiss his ass, but 57 is the most homerific poster on this board and would give Obama a knob job if he asked, that is how much of a Dummicrat he is.

Zito
Yourself
Sturg
and myself do not follow either party lines but Zito will defend the Dummicrats to a certain extent
 
I don't defend the Democrats. I defend against lies. I don't follow pretty much anyone or any person I vote for someone who will best represent my beliefs. Which is a combination of freedom and sanity.
 
Georgia was completely different situation. We didn't have a defense treaty with the Georgians.
 
Hawk said:
Does it? I don't see anything on that page about Georgia.

We do have a security cooperation agreement with Georgia (since 2003) but it does not have any defense parameters.
Click to expand...

You saw something about the Ukraine? They're not a member of NATO, nor was a direct treaty signed according to the state department like with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
 
zitothebrave said:
You saw something about the Ukraine? They're not a member of NATO, nor was a direct treaty signed according to the state department like with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Click to expand...

1994 Budapest Memorandum

Trying to compare Georgia to Ukraine is an argument that can not be won.

Strategically, diplomatically, financially, we are talking about two completely different beasts.
 
Budapest Memorandum isn't a defense treaty like you implied. It's basically an agreement for the Russians getting Nukes from the Ukraine they won't invade. It's not a treaty, it's a political agreement, kinda like the Truman Doctrine, or any other policy or agreeement that's not a treaty. Treaties are ratified by congress and we never signed one with the Ukraine we're not required to invade. We had agreements in place with Georgia which is why we we supplied tons of aid to them and made a similar hand shake agreement with them after the russian crisis.
 
Krgrecw said:
This is why I don't understand the liberals with their appeasement and 'diplomatic talks' People like Putin only stop when you physically force him them stop. Some people are like rabid dogs. You need to put them down.
Click to expand...

LOL

Can't make this crap up.
 
zitothebrave said:
Budapest Memorandum isn't a defense treaty like you implied. It's basically an agreement for the Russians getting Nukes from the Ukraine they won't invade. It's not a treaty, it's a political agreement, kinda like the Truman Doctrine, or any other policy or agreeement that's not a treaty. Treaties are ratified by congress and we never signed one with the Ukraine we're not required to invade. We had agreements in place with Georgia which is why we we supplied tons of aid to them and made a similar hand shake agreement with them after the russian crisis.
Click to expand...

The Truman Doctrine was not a political agreement, it was the undocumented foreign policies of an administration.

The Budapest Memorandum was signed by Clinton. It is an actionable document (splitting hairs over 'treaty' and 'legally binding treatise' is your call) which provides for the defense of the Ukraine (by Russia, Great Britain, AND the United States, individually) in exchange for the disposal of the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal, which was HUGE.

It is patently false to suggest we had a similar agreement with Georgia.
 
It's not actionable because it's not a treaty, it's an agreement signed by an old administration. It's not a defense treaty. It doesn't require or even call for action. Bulletpointed

Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

Can you say Russia broke their side of this effective Gentleman's agreement? Yes. Is there any required action by the US or UK which would be in a treaty? No. And I never said we had the same agreement with them before or similar. We had different agreements, which again is why we were supplying them with so much aid. And since then we've signed a similar political agreement with them that Clinton signed with the Ukraine.
 
Krgrecw said:
This is why I don't understand the liberals with their appeasement and 'diplomatic talks' People like Putin only stop when you physically force him them stop. Some people are like rabid dogs. You need to put them down.
Click to expand...

What do you propose? We could do what we did in Iraq when we put Saddam Hussein in his place, but we saw the result of that.
 
zitothebrave said:
It's not actionable because it's not a treaty, it's an agreement signed by an old administration. It's not a defense treaty. It doesn't require or even call for action. Bulletpointed

Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

Can you say Russia broke their side of this effective Gentleman's agreement? Yes. Is there any required action by the US or UK which would be in a treaty? No. And I never said we had the same agreement with them before or similar. We had different agreements, which again is why we were supplying them with so much aid. And since then we've signed a similar political agreement with them that Clinton signed with the Ukraine.
Click to expand...

It certainly is actionable. The memorandum is exactly what's given the United States any say at all in what's going on in Crimea.

The idea that it was simply a Gentleman's agreement is actually kind of funny. You don't give up the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world (greater than the UK, China, and France combined) in exchange for a handshake. Read between the lines. Interpreting the memorandum as a mere formality is a grave misinterpretation of what diplomatic agreements actually are, and ignoring the stipulations explicitly set forth (especially by this one in particular) in them sets an incredibly poor precedent internationally.

But that's beside the point.

My original bone of contention was that the United States did not have any sort of defensive treaty/formal agreement with Georgia in 2008. They do with the Ukraine. It's not a matter of requirement/obligation -- even if there were explicit provisions for defense of the Ukraine, the US wouldn't have mobilized its forces yet. It is, however, a matter of inclusion ... the United States is obligated to protect Ukrainian territorial integrity. Take that for what you will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top