cabiness42 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) I hate Fox News and everyone who listens to them. OBAMA AND THE ENTIRE EU IS GOING TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AND ISOLATE RUSSIA This is the RIGHT and PRUDENT move. Why the f*** do you guys all want BOOTZ ON DUH GROWND NOW OR YOU FAILZ OBAAMMA! I hate assholes who assume that I listen to Fox News because of what I said. My thoughts are my own. Edited March 4, 2014 by HickoryHuskers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 3, 2014 -> 09:29 PM) their standing army is double the size of ours... Our active military is almost exactly twice as large as theirs, plus we spend boatloads more money. Russia has a draft as well, so it isn't an all-volunteer army. Even if there army were twice the size, you're still talking about an invasion and occupation of another country that would have huge internal and international backlash. How well has that worked for anyone in recent decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 3, 2014 -> 10:29 PM) their standing army is double the size of ours... So? They still wouldn't be able to hold the Ukraine against a population that didn't want them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 07:59 AM) Our active military is almost exactly twice as large as theirs, plus we spend boatloads more money. Russia has a draft as well, so it isn't an all-volunteer army. Even if there army were twice the size, you're still talking about an invasion and occupation of another country that would have huge internal and international backlash. How well has that worked for anyone in recent decades? Absolutely. I'm well aware that an aggressor hasn't won a war in.... well... ever, in the last 100+ years, so I'm not saying it'd be the prudent move, and hell I don't even think the odds of an actual invasion are anywhere near high, but there is a reason he's doing this beyond "protecting" Crimea. The problem is, if we just sit back and let him annex Crimea, that sets a really dangerous precedent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 07:55 AM) I hate assholes who assume that I listen to Fox News because of what I said. My thoughts are my own. OK, well in that case, why do you feel Obama is sitting on his ass? What would you have preferred him to do, up to this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 OK, well in that case, why do you feel Obama is sitting on his ass? What would you have preferred him to do, up to this point? Immediate trade and travel restrictions. Also, immediately greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline and other domestic energy options in order to reduce Russia's influence over the energy markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 10:48 AM) Immediate trade and travel restrictions. Also, immediately greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline and other domestic energy options in order to reduce Russia's influence over the energy markets. You wanted all of that to happen in 24 hours? This whole thing's only been going on three days. There is a LOT at stake and it's incredibly important how we respond, as well as how the rest of the world responds. There are many nations involved and many moving parts to something like this. We do now have sanctions in place, and I'm sure more will follow. I expect Russia also to be kicked from the G8. And lets be honest, if he used this to greenlight the Keystone, opponents would be screaming opportunism. There's no reason to rush to any hasty action, better to examine options and focus on diplomacy IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 You wanted all of that to happen in 24 hours? This whole thing's only been going on three days. There is a LOT at stake and it's incredibly important how we respond, as well as how the rest of the world responds. There are many nations involved and many moving parts to something like this. We do now have sanctions in place, and I'm sure more will follow. I expect Russia also to be kicked from the G8. And lets be honest, if he used this to greenlight the Keystone, opponents would be screaming opportunism. There's no reason to rush to any hasty action, better to examine options and focus on diplomacy IMO. Trade and travel restrictions are diplomacy. And the energy solutions are something that should be done anyway but this situation is providing urgency. Yes, stuff should happen within 48 hours. Sends a message that we are serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) Trade and travel restrictions are diplomacy. And the energy solutions are something that should be done anyway but this situation is providing urgency. Yes, stuff should happen within 48 hours. Sends a message that we are serious. Just to stress...almost all of those are irrelevant unless Europe goes along. The U.S. and Russia simply don't trade that much directly, and blocking Russian travel to the U.S. will simply mean their rich people will visit Europe. As of right now, the European nations aren't showing much willingness to go along with those type of restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I would like for them to have NOT offered a billion in aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Keystone would do f***-all as far as Russia in concerned. They supply Europe with a significant percentage of their oil and natural gas, and tar sands oil from Canada won't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) I would like for them to have NOT offered a billion in aid. Military solutions aren't appealing for the west right now, and punitive measures will just result in more of the same from Russia (though the west has more ammo there than Russia does). Going the route of making the west seem like a better deal seems like a smart investment to me. Also worth noting, some of that money is IMF, not just US funds. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) Keystone would do f***-all as far as Russia in concerned. They supply Europe with a significant percentage of their oil and natural gas, and tar sands oil from Canada won't change that. Obama is still card-hoarding with Keystone, and this isn't what he's going to use it for. That is the more relevant issue at hand, not whether or not it would have an effect (which, you are right, it wouldn't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) Military solutions aren't appealing for the west right now, and punitive measures will just result in more of the same from Russia (though the west has more ammo there than Russia does). Going the route of making the west seem like a better deal seems like a smart investment to me. Also worth noting, some of that money is IMF, not just US funds. Obama is still card-hoarding with Keystone, and this isn't what he's going to use it for. That is the more relevant issue at hand, not whether or not it would have an effect (which, you are right, it wouldn't). Wouldn't the mere fact that we aren't invading them make us look like a better option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 02:30 PM) Wouldn't the mere fact that we aren't invading them make us look like a better option? Not for the people in Ukraine who are in favor of a strong relationship with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 01:30 PM) Wouldn't the mere fact that we aren't invading them make us look like a better option? To Western Ukraine, sure. But whoever ends up in charge of Ukraine is going to have a very difficult time satisfying all sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Lindsey Graham @GrahamBlog It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression. #Ukraine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 That's pretty remarkably stupid even for Lindsey Graham. Not everything is directly related to the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I really don't get the whole "US/The West is weak while Putin is strong and takes what he wants" story. This has been pretty s***ty for Putin from the start. He had a friendly government running Ukraine last November. Now he's got a pretty major neighbor in the midst of a populist (though not exactly democratic) coup by anti-Russian factions and a serious threat to the long-term status of their only warm-water naval base in Crimea. He's being portrayed negatively all over the world and looks like a huge hypocrite over his "don't meddle in internal affairs" protection he ran for Assad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 01:30 PM) Wouldn't the mere fact that we aren't invading them make us look like a better option? Remember their recent history. Under Russia, both during the cold war and in recent years, Russian influence meant stability, albeit with tons of corruption. On the other hand, in the years immediately after the USSR collapsed, that was chaos. Now chaos again with the yanking between sides. These people care little for geopolitical concerns, or niceties like true freedom. They just want to eat, and for many, the answer (at least short term) is Russia. Also remember, Crimea (as I think SS pointed out) was formerly Russian anyway, was basically put upon Ukraine in the Soviet years, and is still heavily ethnically Russian. Who do you think those folks would rather align with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 01:50 PM) Remember their recent history. Under Russia, both during the cold war and in recent years, Russian influence meant stability, albeit with tons of corruption. On the other hand, in the years immediately after the USSR collapsed, that was chaos. Now chaos again with the yanking between sides. These people care little for geopolitical concerns, or niceties like true freedom. They just want to eat, and for many, the answer (at least short term) is Russia. Also remember, Crimea (as I think SS pointed out) was formerly Russian anyway, was basically put upon Ukraine in the Soviet years, and is still heavily ethnically Russian. Who do you think those folks would rather align with? http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/eu....html?hpt=hp_t2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 02:45 PM) http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/eu....html?hpt=hp_t2 A lot of that goes back to the forced Russification of the countries that became a part of the Soviet Union, and didn't want to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) The purpose is to convince Ukrainians that we are divided, not one country, and that the safest course of action for Russian-speaking areas is to break away and join Russia. I have to imagine that Putin desires a unified, pro-Russia Ukraine above anything else. Yuri in Simferopol told me that it's a handful of pro-Russian extremists in the streets trying to make a scene for Russian video cameras -- they are showing that these are the Russians who request protection! Isn't this similarly true of the Euromaidan protests? Edited March 4, 2014 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Rachael Maddow says the whole situation here is Bush's fault. Nice to know he still lives rent free in some people's heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 5, 2014 -> 11:49 AM) Rachael Maddow says the whole situation here is Bush's fault. Nice to know he still lives rent free in some people's heads. The political discourse in this country would be so much better if people just ignored the screamers like Maddow and Limbaugh. Then they would go away and we could have a reasonable discussion on important topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts