What Are the US Goals In Ukraine?

[kaz]

That worked really well in Bosnia. Oh, wait.

We should have stayed out of Bosnia. And Kosovo. And let the Europeans lead. I'm not saying the Europeans will do anything, I'm saying they won't. They aren't our conflicts, so we should tell the Euros we love you man, we're right behind you. Then we can pitch a tent and relax because they're not going anywhere.

Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.

John Stuart Mill.

How is taking on every bad guy in the world working out for us? Our "allies" take our benefit (e.g., oil to Europe), then constantly stab us in the back. Why is every problem our problem?

 

[The Rabbi]

We should have stayed out of Bosnia. And Kosovo. And let the Europeans lead. I'm not saying the Europeans will do anything, I'm saying they won't. They aren't our conflicts, so we should tell the Euros we love you man, we're right behind you. Then we can pitch a tent and relax because they're not going anywhere.

Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.

John Stuart Mill.

How is taking on every bad guy in the world working out for us? Our "allies" take our benefit (e.g., oil to Europe), then constantly stab us in the back. Why is every problem our problem?

Reductio ad absurdum argument noted.

 

[kaz]

I can't get past the stupidity and ignorance of this one remark. It is like a leftist spouting off.
Sorry, debate is impossible with someone who thinks that. Thanks and good luck.

I usually agree with you, but you are wrong on this one.

No, I am not wrong.
Kaz might believe that Russia is wrong overall but somehow justified because of this. Just like he might believe 9/11 happened as "blowback" against US foreign policy. Tht doesnt mean he favors Islamic terrorists. Just that he believes some of what they say. Same here.

I have nowhere said what they are doing is justified. I said that it's historically Russian is why they are going to view it in extreme terms even for them. This was my reference to your taking a page from the liberal playbook, take factual statements about the Russians and turn them into statements of position in support of them.

I've repeated it several times too. It's not our fight, we aren't going to accomplish anything, they are going to go to the wall over this because they view the Crimea as theirs already. They have a factual basis for that belief. It doesn't make it right.

Bottom line is if we are going to fight this, we need to have an objective ... with a plan to get there. Or we should stay out of it. Otherwise we just look weak and ineffective.

 

[kaz]

John Stuart Mill.

How is taking on every bad guy in the world working out for us? Our "allies" take our benefit (e.g., oil to Europe), then constantly stab us in the back. Why is every problem our problem?

Reductio ad absurdum argument noted.

Explain where you draw the line then. I say:

No: - Lebanon (Reagan), Kuwait (HW), Iraq (Clinton), Sudan (Clinton), Afghanistan (Clinton), Bosnia (Clinton), Kosovo (Clinton), Iraq (W), Afghanistan Nation Building (W), Expanding Afghanistan (Obama), Libya (Obama)

Yes: - Grenada (Reagan), Libya (Reagan), Panama (HW), Attacking Afghanistan (W).

Grenada because of the direct threat of a communist platform off our shores, Panama because their government was essentially attacking us and attacking Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda who did attack us. Libya under Reagan the same, you target Americans, we target you.

You're saying it's absurd I state you as wanting to take on every bad guy. Yet you offer no limit to taking up the opportunity to do so. So what is the limit? Mine is where there is an actual threat to us. Then I want to act. When you do not want to act?

 

[kaz]

Just like he might believe 9/11 happened as "blowback" against US foreign policy. Tht doesnt mean he favors Islamic terrorists. Just that he believes some of what they say. Same here.

Not same here, I don't believe that. I am fundamentally different from liberals in that I think we are the good guy. We are trying to do the right thing. It's just that we're over our head and too deep in every mess and it's harming us rather than solving problems. We need to focus on our own issues and not solve the world's.

Just so you know, I'm deeply offended at that statement, but I realize you didn't mean it that way and don't realize my deep personal connection to that attack. I lived in the NY area and worked in Manhattan for many years in Financial Services and consulting for Financial Services companies. I worked at Bankers Trust on Liberty Street across the street from the World Trade Center during the 90s. I came up through the subway every morning through the WTC. The day it happened, I worked for GE Capital in Connecticut outside NYC and we had a building of people also by there we were trying to call to find out if anything happened to them. Fortunately, I know of no one I personally knew who died, but I knew people all around there.

I supported as I said attacking Libya (under for targeting Americans), Panama because their government was supporting organized crime in America, blasting the crap out of Afghanistan because Al Qaeda was behind it and the Taliban harbored them. I am in no way weak dealing with people who attack us. There is no comparison between that and the Crimea, none at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just like he might believe 9/11 happened as "blowback" against US foreign policy. Tht doesnt mean he favors Islamic terrorists. Just that he believes some of what they say. Same here.

Not same here, I don't believe that. I am fundamentally different from liberals in that I think we are the good guy. We are trying to do the right thing. It's just that we're over our head and too deep in every mess and it's harming us rather than solving problems. We need to focus on our own issues and not solve the world's.

Just so you know, I'm deeply offended at that statement, but I realize you didn't mean it that way and don't realize my deep personal connection to that attack. I lived in the NY area and worked in Manhattan for many years in Financial Services and consulting for Financial Services companies. I worked at Bankers Trust on Liberty Street across the street from the World Trade Center during the 90s. I came up through the subway every morning through the WTC. The day it happened, I worked for GE Capital in Connecticut outside NYC and we had a building of people also by there we were trying to call to find out if anything happened to them. Fortunately, I know of no one I personally knew who died, but I knew people all around there.

I supported as I said attacking Libya (under for targeting Americans), Panama because their government was supporting organized crime in America, blasting the crap out of Afghanistan because Al Qaeda was behind it and the Taliban harbored them. I am in no way weak dealing with people who attack us. There is no comparison between that and the Crimea, none at all.

OK. I was giving an example and many self identified libertarians here have advanced exactly that idea--that 9/11 represented blowback. FWIW my uncle worked at Compaq in 1 Liberty Plaza and was there that day. He walked home to Queens from lower Manhattan.

The importance of confronting the Russians over Ukraine is that if we do not they will continue exerting force over other countries. Is eastern Ukraine historically Russian? What about Latvia? Poland? Where do you draw the line?
The U.S. has interests in all these places, as well as a historic committment to freedom. Allowing Russia to rebuild its empire conflicts with those interests.

 

[Contumacious]

The importance of confronting the Russians over Ukraine is that if we do not they will continue exerting force over other countries.

Historical evidence shows that the former USSR reacted to US belligerence.

The evidence shows that the US is so dominated by the military industrial complex that in 1967 it tried to sink the USS Liberty then blame it on Egypt in order to invade Egypt and remove from the Soviet sphere of influence.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRZSzdQuOqM"]USS Liberty saga[/ame]

.

 

[The Rabbi]

The importance of confronting the Russians over Ukraine is that if we do not they will continue exerting force over other countries.

Historical evidence shows that the former USSR reacted to US belligerence.

The evidence shows that the US is so dominated by the military industrial complex that in 1967 it tried to sink the USS Liberty then blame it on Egypt in order to invade Egypt and remove from the Soviet sphere of influence.
][/B]

.

That was the Soviet propaganda of teh era: that the USSR was merely responding to provocations by the West and they really wanted to be left alone. We know that was a lie. Only jew hating dupes like Constipation believe it.

 

[jodylee]

This is actually a serious question. Based on statements by the administration, what are our stated goals in dealing with the Russians on the Ukraine issue?

I ask because I havent heard one yet. And if the administration cannot articulate its goals, it cannot achieve them.

the Goals are the expansion of NATO up to the door step of Russia. It all kicked off when The Ukraine GOV refused the EU deal which happened to have as part of the deal opening up to NATO. Its all backfiring (if it wasn't so dangerous I would be laughing my ass off) they lost Crimea and the GOV they imposed are a bunch of nutters and wont necessarily do as they are told.

 

[Contumacious]

The importance of confronting the Russians over Ukraine is that if we do not they will continue exerting force over other countries.

Historical evidence shows that the former USSR reacted to US belligerence.

The evidence shows that the US is so dominated by the military industrial complex that in 1967 it tried to sink the USS Liberty then blame it on Egypt in order to invade Egypt and remove from the Soviet sphere of influence.
][/B]

.

That was the Soviet propaganda of teh era: that the USSR was merely responding to provocations by the West and they really wanted to be left alone. We know that was a lie. Only jew hating dupes like Constipation believe it.

BULLSHIT.

"From 1989 to 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to let Eastern Europe go free and withdraw his troops and tank armies back to the Urals. The Soviet Union was allowed to dissolve into 15 nations. In three years, the USSR gave up an empire, a third of its territory, and half its people.

And it extended to us a hand of friendship.

How did we respond? We pushed NATO right up to Russia’s borders, bringing in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, even former Soviet republics Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

European objections alone prevented us from handing out NATO war guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia. Was this a friendly act?

.

 

[Redfish]

I can't get past the stupidity and ignorance of this one remark. It is like a leftist spouting off.
Sorry, debate is impossible with someone who thinks that. Thanks and good luck.

I usually agree with you, but you are wrong on this one.

No, I am not wrong.
Kaz might believe that Russia is wrong overall but somehow justified because of this. Just like he might believe 9/11 happened as "blowback" against US foreign policy. Tht doesnt mean he favors Islamic terrorists. Just that he believes some of what they say. Same here.

Yes, you are. What Russia does with Crimea and/or Ukraine is none of our business. We do not have the charter to opppse every Russian move regardless of where or why.

We do not need to restart the cold war. When US interests are threatened we need to go full bore to protect them. There is no US interest in keeping crimea part of ukraine. Especially since the people of crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia.

 

[The Rabbi]

Historical evidence shows that the former USSR reacted to US belligerence.

The evidence shows that the US is so dominated by the military industrial complex that in 1967 it tried to sink the USS Liberty then blame it on Egypt in order to invade Egypt and remove from the Soviet sphere of influence.
][/B]

.

That was the Soviet propaganda of teh era: that the USSR was merely responding to provocations by the West and they really wanted to be left alone. We know that was a lie. Only jew hating dupes like Constipation believe it.

BULLSHIT.

"From 1989 to 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to let Eastern Europe go free and withdraw his troops and tank armies back to the Urals. The Soviet Union was allowed to dissolve into 15 nations. In three years, the USSR gave up an empire, a third of its territory, and half its people.

And it extended to us a hand of friendship.

How did we respond? We pushed NATO right up to Russia’s borders, bringing in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, even former Soviet republics Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

European objections alone prevented us from handing out NATO war guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia. Was this a friendly act?

.

You understand the Soviet Union existed before 1989, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

I usually agree with you, but you are wrong on this one.

No, I am not wrong.
Kaz might believe that Russia is wrong overall but somehow justified because of this. Just like he might believe 9/11 happened as "blowback" against US foreign policy. Tht doesnt mean he favors Islamic terrorists. Just that he believes some of what they say. Same here.

Yes, you are. What Russia does with Crimea and/or Ukraine is none of our business. We do not have the charter to opppse every Russian move regardless of where or why.

We do not need to restart the cold war. When US interests are threatened we need to go full bore to protect them. There is no US interest in keeping crimea part of ukraine. Especially since the people of crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia.

If it's none of our business why did we sign an accord guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity?

 

[Redfish]

No, I am not wrong.
Kaz might believe that Russia is wrong overall but somehow justified because of this. Just like he might believe 9/11 happened as "blowback" against US foreign policy. Tht doesnt mean he favors Islamic terrorists. Just that he believes some of what they say. Same here.

Yes, you are. What Russia does with Crimea and/or Ukraine is none of our business. We do not have the charter to opppse every Russian move regardless of where or why.

We do not need to restart the cold war. When US interests are threatened we need to go full bore to protect them. There is no US interest in keeping crimea part of ukraine. Especially since the people of crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia.

If it's none of our business why did we sign an accord guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity?

Because we are very stupid when it comes to foreign policy. We need to get over the idea that we are the world police force and morals code enforcer.

'live and let live' will get us a lot farther than 'do it my way or else'.

 

[Alex1983]

I wander why EU is so anxious to get Ukraine inside AS SOON AS POSSIBLE paying no attention to millions of people who do not want to be just next NATO's military base ?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, you are. What Russia does with Crimea and/or Ukraine is none of our business. We do not have the charter to opppse every Russian move regardless of where or why.

We do not need to restart the cold war. When US interests are threatened we need to go full bore to protect them. There is no US interest in keeping crimea part of ukraine. Especially since the people of crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia.

If it's none of our business why did we sign an accord guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity?

Because we are very stupid when it comes to foreign policy. We need to get over the idea that we are the world police force and morals code enforcer.

'live and let live' will get us a lot farther than 'do it my way or else'.

So you agree we do have an interest because we signed a guarantee, right?

 

[Redfish]

If it's none of our business why did we sign an accord guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity?

Because we are very stupid when it comes to foreign policy. We need to get over the idea that we are the world police force and morals code enforcer.

'live and let live' will get us a lot farther than 'do it my way or else'.

So you agree we do have an interest because we signed a guarantee, right?

No, we may have a moral committment but we have no national interest----you do see the difference, right?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This is actually a serious question. Based on statements by the administration, what are our stated goals in dealing with the Russians on the Ukraine issue?

I ask because I havent heard one yet. And if the administration cannot articulate its goals, it cannot achieve them.

the Goals are the expansion of NATO up to the door step of Russia. It all kicked off when The Ukraine GOV refused the EU deal which happened to have as part of the deal opening up to NATO. Its all backfiring (if it wasn't so dangerous I would be laughing my ass off) they lost Crimea and the GOV they imposed are a bunch of nutters and wont necessarily do as they are told.

Ukraine has this tendency to play Russia and the EU against each other.....

will it continue doing this or will it finally decide which side it wants to be on....?

 

[Redfish]

This is actually a serious question. Based on statements by the administration, what are our stated goals in dealing with the Russians on the Ukraine issue?

I ask because I havent heard one yet. And if the administration cannot articulate its goals, it cannot achieve them.

the Goals are the expansion of NATO up to the door step of Russia. It all kicked off when The Ukraine GOV refused the EU deal which happened to have as part of the deal opening up to NATO. Its all backfiring (if it wasn't so dangerous I would be laughing my ass off) they lost Crimea and the GOV they imposed are a bunch of nutters and wont necessarily do as they are told.

Ukraine has this tendency to play Russia and the EU against each other.....

will it continue doing this or will it finally decide which side it wants to be on....?

all the more reason for us to stay out of it.

 

[kaz]

The importance of confronting the Russians over Ukraine is that if we do not they will continue exerting force over other countries. Is eastern Ukraine historically Russian? What about Latvia? Poland? Where do you draw the line?
The U.S. has interests in all these places, as well as a historic committment to freedom. Allowing Russia to rebuild its empire conflicts with those interests.

I draw the line that when the US is directly involved, then I don't draw any line short of doing what needs to be done. Libya is a good example, they targeted US servicemen in Germany and elsewhere with terrorism, I 100% support bombing the shit out of them and trying to kill Gaddafi. You go after Americans, we will go after you. Ditto Noriega. I oppose the war on drugs, that isn't a statement in favor of drug lords. However, I don't want to be policeman to the world. I also support serious domestic energy production so we don't have to be so involved in the bad countries we buy from now.

As for Russia, Crimea is the only case of which I know was actually part of Russia. I think we need to draw the line at countries in NATO and make sure there is an actual NATO military presence there so that if the Russians attack they are clear they are attacking NATO, not just that country. If they invade anyway, we need to kill a lot of Russians. Putin wants power, he doesn't want to be dead. I'm not clear what we can do for non-NATO countries but bluster. Fortunately, Obama is very comfortable with bluster, we have the right guy for the job.