Things are getting crazy in Kiev

I think the polite response here is maybe indulge more in non-US news sources. Your stand point on anything foreign is that America can do no wrong.

I think you are way off point on the reasons USA has been involved in these recent conflicts but you are entitled to your view.

 

The your job/not your job illustration is pretty amusing. That said, Hannibal has a point to saying, "That is fine please give us our money back". Despite our own economic hardships we continue to give and fund international programs. It is like an investment if you will. If you invest heavily in a company, you feel as though you have the right to influence and protect your interests.

That's cool. Please send all the foreign aid back. Oh and NATO and the UN can go F them selves since they are primarily supported financially by the US.

 

I'm ok with NATO support, but the UN can go fornicate itself with a iron rod. And in light of that, unless they start paying rent on the expensive downtown New York building they occupy, they can relocate to someplace that gives a damn.

 

 

The your job/not your job illustration is pretty amusing. That said, Hannibal has a point to saying, "That is fine please give us our money back". Despite our own economic hardships we continue to give and fund international programs. It is like an investment if you will. If you invest heavily in a company, you feel as though you have the right to influence and protect your interests.

Has China invested much into US interests and how would you feel about them influencing US policy?

Has China invested much into US interests and how would you feel about them influencing US policy?

 

Lol you know a situation is messed up when I am being serious and Destructo is goofing!

To answer your question wheels

 

Iraq

Afghanistan

Libya

 

How has US actions there and those are only a few differed from Russian actions?

 

The short answer to your question and the most obvious difference is Ukraine isn't ruled by a brutal and barbaric dictator (or in Afghanistan's case a brutal and barbaric group) who has terrorized and murdered his own citizens and sponsored or otherwise supported horrific acts of violence in other countries, and there is also no credible argument that Russia's actions have a basis in international law.

 

The longer answer, taking these in reverse order, is that Libya was not a "U.S." operation--in fact it was the origin of the term "leading from behind" with reference to Obama's strategy. It was a NATO operation that was at least in part authorized by the U.N. (the U.N. authorized the creation of a "no fly zone" which led to the initial bombing, etc.), and after the U.S. was involved in the initial bombing Obama limited U.S. involvement to playing a supporting role with no U.S. troops on the ground, etc. I personally don't think we should have gotten involved in Libya at all, and certainly not without Congressional authorization, but I don't lose sleep over Gadhafi's death and don't think what the U.S. did there was awful or unlawful.

 

As for Afghanistan, given the role of the Taliban (who ran what passed for Afghanistan's government at the time) in supporting OBL and his ilk and therefore the various acts of terror they committed, including 911, that was a no-brainer. Like Hannibal, I think we stuck around too long after we killed or ran the bad guys off and tried to "fix" things for the populace, which anyone should know would be damn near impossible, but we certainly couldn't stand by and let OBL and AQ continue to use Afghanistan as a base of operations for future attacks. Is your position really that the U.S. should have left things in Afghanistan alone? Really? Is there another country on the planet with the ability to invade Afghanistan and oust the bad guys which wouldn't have done so in similar circumstances? The international law aspect of the war in Afghanistan is more complicated because Afghanistan wasn't much of a functioning state to begin with and the people we were after were not technically agents of the "state" but were more like guests of whatever state existed. But arguing that the invasion was a legal act of self-defense in the aftermath of 911 doesn't seem like that much of a stretch, and is a hell of a lot better basis for the invasion than anything Russia has to rely on in Ukraine.

 

And lastly, Iraq. Another brutal regime with a long history of crimes against humanity and illicit WMD programs, and a long history of failing to comply with the agreements it made following the first Gulf War. IMO the Hussein regime in Iraq was pretty clearly a victim of both its own conduct and 911. If Iraq had abided by its obligations from the first Gulf War and the numerous U.N. resolutions on the subject, or if 911 hadn't happened, I doubt the U.S. would have acted. But in the aftermath of 911, GWB simply wasn't going to err on the side of "hoping" that another actor who clearly would like to do us harm didn't fulfill his ambitions. Hussein had a long history of manufacturing and in some cases using WMD's, and of attempting to obtain more dangerous WMD's (i.e., nuclear weapons). And as noted he had done everything in his power to ignore, delay, or otherwise frustrate the various U.N. resolutions he was supposed to comply with. And while there is room for debate about whether the invasion complied with international law (the U.S. relied on a U.N. resolution which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to uphold various other resolutions regarding Iraq), again, there is no room for debate about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as far as I can tell.

 

Personally, as noted, I think getting involved in Libya was a mistake, Afghanistan was a no-brainer, and Iraq was a very tough call, but in the aftermath of 911 it's hard to disagree strongly with taking action to eliminate potential threats before they manifest themselves. But like Afghanistan, I think we stayed far too long and expended far too many resources--we should have overthrown the regime, clearly explained that we would be back if whatever new regime emerged didn't change its ways, and got the hell out. The Russian/Ukrainian thing is far more of a small potatoes thing in that no one has gotten killed or anything yet, but also is very different in that there is no apparent legal justification for what Russia has done. Hopefully the situation will be resolved peacefully.

 

And finally, I would be all for removing the U.S. bases, troops, and other assets throughout Europe and other parts of the world that have provided a secure umbrella for so many countries for so long (and sadly with little appreciation in return it seems), but for one thing. Humans being human, at some point another tyrant or alliance of tyrants would start nibbling away at Europe again, and we would be forced to intervene again, not just to save Europe (again), but also to keep whatever nasty actors were involved from growing so large that they threatened us. Which would be much more difficult and expensive if we had to start from scratch.

Lol you know a situation is messed up when I am being serious and Destructo is goofing!

 

 

I think the polite response here is maybe indulge more in non-US news sources. Your stand point on anything foreign is that America can do no wrong.

I think you are way off point on the reasons USA has been involved in these recent conflicts but you are entitled to your view.

 

My view is not that America can do no wrong, nor is Fox News my primary news source. Also American news sources are not necessarily pro-American, that depends on the news source. What is your view for the U.S. being involved in these recent conflicts? How is it being involved in those conflicts anything similar to what Russia is doing?

The short answer to your question and the most obvious difference is Ukraine isn't ruled by a brutal and barbaric dictator (or in Afghanistan's case a brutal and barbaric group) who has terrorized and murdered his own citizens and sponsored or otherwise supported horrific acts of violence in other countries, and there is also no credible argument that Russia's actions have a basis in international law.

 

The longer answer, taking these in reverse order, is that Libya was not a "U.S." operation--in fact it was the origin of the term "leading from behind" with reference to Obama's strategy. It was a NATO operation that was at least in part authorized by the U.N. (the U.N. authorized the creation of a "no fly zone" which led to the initial bombing, etc.), and after the U.S. was involved in the initial bombing Obama limited U.S. involvement to playing a supporting role with no U.S. troops on the ground, etc. I personally don't think we should have gotten involved in Libya at all, and certainly not without Congressional authorization, but I don't lose sleep over Gadhafi's death and don't think what the U.S. did there was awful or unlawful.

 

As for Afghanistan, given the role of the Taliban (who ran what passed for Afghanistan's government at the time) in supporting OBL and his ilk and therefore the various acts of terror they committed, including 911, that was a no-brainer. Like Hannibal, I think we stuck around too long after we killed or ran the bad guys off and tried to "fix" things for the populace, which anyone should know would be damn near impossible, but we certainly couldn't stand by and let OBL and AQ continue to use Afghanistan as a base of operations for future attacks. Is your position really that the U.S. should have left things in Afghanistan alone? Really? Is there another country on the planet with the ability to invade Afghanistan and oust the bad guys which wouldn't have done so in similar circumstances? The international law aspect of the war in Afghanistan is more complicated because Afghanistan wasn't much of a functioning state to begin with and the people we were after were not technically agents of the "state" but were more like guests of whatever state existed. But arguing that the invasion was a legal act of self-defense in the aftermath of 911 doesn't seem like that much of a stretch, and is a hell of a lot better basis for the invasion than anything Russia has to rely on in Ukraine.

 

And lastly, Iraq. Another brutal regime with a long history of crimes against humanity and illicit WMD programs, and a long history of failing to comply with the agreements it made following the first Gulf War. IMO the Hussein regime in Iraq was pretty clearly a victim of both its own conduct and 911. If Iraq had abided by its obligations from the first Gulf War and the numerous U.N. resolutions on the subject, or if 911 hadn't happened, I doubt the U.S. would have acted. But in the aftermath of 911, GWB simply wasn't going to err on the side of "hoping" that another actor who clearly would like to do us harm didn't fulfill his ambitions. Hussein had a long history of manufacturing and in some cases using WMD's, and of attempting to obtain more dangerous WMD's (i.e., nuclear weapons). And as noted he had done everything in his power to ignore, delay, or otherwise frustrate the various U.N. resolutions he was supposed to comply with. And while there is room for debate about whether the invasion complied with international law (the U.S. relied on a U.N. resolution which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to uphold various other resolutions regarding Iraq), again, there is no room for debate about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as far as I can tell.

 

Personally, as noted, I think getting involved in Libya was a mistake, Afghanistan was a no-brainer, and Iraq was a very tough call, but in the aftermath of 911 it's hard to disagree strongly with taking action to eliminate potential threats before they manifest themselves. But like Afghanistan, I think we stayed far too long and expended far too many resources--we should have overthrown the regime, clearly explained that we would be back if whatever new regime emerged didn't change its ways, and got the hell out. The Russian/Ukrainian thing is far more of a small potatoes thing in that no one has gotten killed or anything yet, but also is very different in that there is no apparent legal justification for what Russia has done. Hopefully the situation will be resolved peacefully.

 

And finally, I would be all for removing the U.S. bases, troops, and other assets throughout Europe and other parts of the world that have provided a secure umbrella for so many countries for so long (and sadly with little appreciation in return it seems), but for one thing. Humans being human, at some point another tyrant or alliance of tyrants would start nibbling away at Europe again, and we would be forced to intervene again, not just to save Europe (again), but also to keep whatever nasty actors were involved from growing so large that they threatened us. Which would be much more difficult and expensive if we had to start from scratch.

 

I'm just going to go ahead and put this here.

 

 

While a bit hyperbolic in nature, it's more truth than opinion.

 

Would have to disagree completely. The rest of the world is the job of the U.S. and yes the U.S. is the world police force. The entire free world depends on the U.S. for underwriting global trade and security.

 

Who protected Europe during the Cold War? The U.S. Who protects it even to a degree now still from a resurgent Russia? The U.S.

 

Who keeps China at bay? The U.S. The Philippines in the early '90s told the U.S. to leave. So we did. Then they got a taste of some real bullying from China and have begged us to come back in, so we are.

 

Who keeps Iran at bay, preventing them from closing the Strait of Hormuz, where about 60% of the global oil supply passes through each day? The U.S.

 

Who patrols the sea lanes and keeps them open, underwriting global trade? The U.S.

 

Who sends out aid primarily to foreign nations that get hit with natural disasters? The U.S.

 

Who maintains the military infrastructure that allows any of the other countries to even operate militarily? The U.S. (for example France having to get the U.S. to airlift their troops into Mali). Aerial refueling capabilities, targeting, aerial transport, etc...the U.S. supplies it for the military operations of other countries oftentimes

Disagree completely. The rest of the world is the job of the U.S. and yes the U.S. is the world police force. The entire free world depends on the U.S. for underwriting global trade and security.

 

While it may be that situation on paper right now, it is not, nor should the rest of the world be our responsibility. I'd say we have enough problems on our hands to sort out before trying to fix everyone else, not to mention we're doing a bang-up job with all the horrible foreign policy that been occurring that past few administration.

 

Helping out allies and standing up for them as much as they would us, sure, but we hardly do that now, and we sure as hell don't need to be Team America World Police.

 

Who protected Europe during the Cold War? The U.S. Who protects it even to a degree now still from a resurgent Russia? The U.S.

 

That seems to be going quite well right now. I hear we are sending nasty letters and gutless phone calls.

 

Who keeps China at bay? The U.S. The Philippines in the early '90s told the U.S. to leave. So we did. Then they got a taste of some real bullying from China and have begged us to come back in, so we are.

 

China has the upper hand, the U.S.'s hegemony is slipping badly, and i believe that's the purpose of the current administration.

 

Who keeps Iran at bay, preventing them from closing the Strait of Hormuz, where about 60% of the global oil supply passes through each day? The U.S.

 

See Russia comment.

 

Who patrols the sea lanes and keeps them open, underwriting global trade? The U.S.

 

Protect one's own interests first because getting all altruistic. While that may be the driving force behind it, we shouldn't be the primary one. If other countries want to toss some cash in for the support, because they don't have a capable military, that would be better in my book.

 

Who sends out aid primarily to foreign nations that get hit with natural disasters? The U.S.

 

Life is unfair, I don't mind charity, but that needs to be reeled in.

 

Who maintains the military infrastructure that allows any of the other countries to even operate militarily? The U.S. (for example France having to get the U.S. to airlift their troops into Mali). Aerial refueling capabilities, targeting, aerial transport, etc...the U.S. supplies it for the military operations of other countries oftentimes

 

See charity comment and offering money comment.

 

Now, while this may come off as a bit nationalistic and isolationist, it's not the intent. We need to get our house in order, and QUICK, otherwise everything will be for naught.

 

While it may be that situation on paper right now, it is not, nor should the rest of the world be our responsibility. I'd say we have enough problems on our hands to sort out before trying to fix everyone else, not to mention we're doing a bang-up job with all the horrible foreign policy that been occurring that past few administration.

 

Depends on which foreign policy you mean IMO. In a perfect world, the rest of the world could take care of itself, but that isn't the case, so IMO it is our responsibility, and that maintains the peace.

 

Helping out allies and standing up for them as much as they would us, sure, but we hardly do that now, and we sure as hell don't need to be Team America World Police.

 

We hardly do it now because they haven't had to face a real threat for awhile. Doesn't mean such a thing is obsolete.

 

That seems to be going quite well right now. I hear we are sending nasty letters and gutless phone calls.

 

Well not surprising with our current President who after Georgia ended all sanctions and freezes with Russia, pulled the missile defense out from under the Polish and Czech Republic, and tried to do a "reset" with Russia. He also said the Cold War is over, which IMO is baseless for two reasons:

 

1) It hasn't been long enough to determine such a thing. What we thought was the end of the Cold War may really have just been a lapse

 

2) If Russia thinks the Cold War is still on, then it's still on

 

Remember Obama made a speech saying, "No nation can or should dominate another..." no nation CAN dominate another? Where'd he get that from? Then John Kerry just a few days ago saying that Russia is behaving in a 19th century fashion in a 21st century world. So is he of the mindset that because this is the 21st century, that countries are supposed to behave in some "enlightened" fashion or something, that the world doesn't still have lots of authoritarian governments that behave in the way authoritarian governments always have? IMO, this administration seems incredibly naïve and Putin thus has no qualms about doing what he wants.

 

China has the upper hand, the U.S.'s hegemony is slipping badly, and i believe that's the purpose of the current administration.

 

So we need to turn it around.

 

See Russia comment.

 

U.S. Navy would force the strait back open if Iran tried closing it.

 

Protect one's own interests first because getting all altruistic. While that may be the driving force behind it, we shouldn't be the primary one. If other countries want to toss some cash in for the support, because they don't have a capable military, that would be better in my book.

 

We protect our own interests by protecting the rest of the world IMO.

 

Life is unfair, I don't mind charity, but that needs to be reeled in.

 

How come?

 

See charity comment and offering money comment.

 

Now, while this may come off as a bit nationalistic and isolationist, it's not the intent. We need to get our house in order, and QUICK, otherwise everything will be for naught.

 

We need to do both. A side benefit to defense spending though is that in many ways it is a technological investment in the economy. A tremendous amount of technological developments we have are ultimately a result of the defense budget. But neither can be left. The U.S. cannot "focus on itself" and leave a power vacuum. And we cannot just focus on foreign policy and not ourselves.

 

Now, while this may come off as a bit nationalistic and isolationist, it's not the intent. We need to get our house in order, and QUICK, otherwise everything will be for naught.

 

I agree 100% on this!

I'm surprised how politically naive some of you guys are. If the US would somehow completely stop getting involved in world affairs and would stop exercising its influence, the world would be in complete chaos and the US would have a lot to loose as well. Just look at the turmoil in the Middle East, it's a direct consequence of the US disengaging from the area since Obama became president.

 

Also I really don't understand how you guys perceive a lack of appreciation from Europe about the defense situation. America doesn't have any potentially dangerous neighbors whilst Europe does. The American military bases in Europe are a consequence of WW2, they were imperative for America to maintain it's superpower status and act as a counter balance to the Soviets. I'm sure that if the situation was reversed Europeans would have done the same for the Americans.

 

Now as a another superpower rises in the far east, it is more important than ever for the US to maintain and increase it's influence. I wonder if the Chinese have been taking notes from the Ukraine situation, wouldn't surprise me if at some point in the future they decide to protect the "ethnic chinese" in Taiwan or reclaim their "historic territories" from Japan ( I'm referring to the islands that are disputed between Japan and China).

 

Say what you will about US bullying other nations, yes it has happened, however, there is a very big difference between the US bullying another nation and the bullying done by Russians or Chinese. Bullying by the US is far more benign. The US usually has a carrot and stick approach while the Russians just have a stick.

Who does the U.S. bully in your view? There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia.

 

Wheels how would you describe the relationship between USA and Cuba?

I don't know almost anything about it but I'm interested to learn.

Now as a another superpower rises in the far east, it is more important than ever for the US to maintain and increase it's influence. I wonder if the Chinese have been taking notes from the Ukraine situation, wouldn't surprise me if at some point in the future they decide to protect the "ethnic chinese" in Taiwan or reclaim their "historic territories" from Japan ( I'm referring to the islands that are disputed between Japan and China).

 

There are quite a few ethnic Chinese in Russia as well, a fact that I'm sure Putin is well aware of.

Wheels how would you describe the relationship between USA and Cuba?

I don't know almost anything about it but I'm interested to learn.

 

Cold, and from what I understand, no diplomatic ties.

There are quite a few ethnic Chinese in Russia as well, a fact that I'm sure Putin is well aware of.

They're Asians but not Chinese. Do not confuse the two. The Asians in Russia, are mostly of Mongol and Turkic origins and have nothing to do with China.

From what I understand, there really is no such thing as an "ethnic Chinese" either. China is home to a multitude of different ethnicities that we label as "Chinese."

From what I understand, there really is no such thing as an "ethnic Chinese" either. China is home to a multitude of different ethnicities that we label as "Chinese."

I don't know the intricacies of the Chinese but Mongol and Turkic peoples have nothing in common with the Chinese except being Asians. They speak languages of a completely different origin and their cultures are significantly different. 92% of Chinese citizens consider themselves Han Chinese, so I'm guessing it's pretty homogenous.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols

 

 

 

Speaking of China, they have used bullish tactics for a number of years to Tibetans.

If I'm living in Crimea, I'm begging for Putin to take us back... and bring back the hot water

 

 

 

 

Again, who can answer the IMF question?

They're Asians but not Chinese. Do not confuse the two. The Asians in Russia, are mostly of Mongol and Turkic origins and have nothing to do with China.

 

The references I've seen in the past don't make such a distinction and don't describe them as Asian; they just talk about the number of "Chinese" or "ethnic Chinese" in Russia. There is actually a Wikipedia entry on the issue (which I didn't know existed until I looked it up in response to your comment), which says the number of ethnic Chinese in Russia has been estimated as high as 2-3 million, but apparently Russian demographers think it's more like 200-400k: Ethnic Chinese in Russia. Either way that's a pretty good sized number.