Crimea.

Truth Detector said:
BINGO! Correction; they know full well AmeriKa is impotent with its current lack of leadership. Europe has been impotent since the end of WWII and have relied on AmeriKa to do all the UNs heavy lifting.

One has to wonder who will enforce the UNs resolutions now that AmeriKa has relinquished its leadership role and now guts her military to fund entitlement programs as Europe has?
Click to expand...

The only UN institution with the power to issue actually binding resolutions is the Security Council, and in this matter there is no resolution because of Russia's veto power.
 
Truth Detector said:
What planet are you on? Vulgar dimwit world? There were thirty-six nations that formed the coalition to enforce Saddams UN resolution violations, NO nation has sided with Russia on their illegal attempt to annex it.

Only he usual cabal of brain dead Liberal dunces on this forum are trying to justify this action to defend their idol Obummer's incompetence on the world stage.
Click to expand...

Russia never bothered to build a coalition, nor did they need one. There are nations that support the Russian position - for instance, Argentina (largely as a way to play "gotcha!" with the west over the Falkland islands). China doesn't really care one way or the other, but if push comes to shove they'll stand by Russia before the west.
 
Truth Detector said:
There is a major difference between the killings now and under Saddam; but you have to have a brain to comprehend it. Under Saddam, they were State sanctioned and sometimes included mass killings with WMDs. Under this Democray, they are illegal and conducted by a small cabal of terrorists trying to convince Western dunces that Arabs are too stupid for Democracy and need to be ruled by despotic dictators.

It seems to be working on leftists and Liberal Democrats.
Click to expand...

The sectarian killings have more to do with long running strife between Kurds, Shi'a, and Sunni. Not everything revolves around the west, I doubt those participating in them give two shits what the west thinks.

As well, the killings under Saddam were well in the past by the time we invaded. An invasion to stop killings would be justified, IMO, I don't think it should be allowed merely as punishment for killings that occurred two decades ago. I'd also like to reiterate Annata's point with regards to Iran - going into Iraq and Afghanistan and toppling two strong, anti-Iranian governments and replacing them with weak ones of questionable legitimacy and hold on the country seriously strengthened Iran's position. I'd like to remind you that for most of the past two millenniums Afghanistan and Iraq were just the eastern and western Persia.
 
Jarod said:
I am not a professor of Crimean history or the politics of this spot of land, however I do know a few things and have studied Russian history.

Crimea, a very strategic spot for oil distribution, has been the subject of a chess match for power for a very long time. It was a part of the former USSR most of that time as its importance rose in the early part of this century. Granted, Crimea was an important shipping center prior to the importance of oil, but not as strategic of a location as it is in modern terms.

So is what Russia has done so terrible or are we upset because we are losing access to an important strategic location?

Since the end of the USSR, Ukraine has been the subject of a great tug-a-war between Eastern and Western interests. Crimea was a location that many ethnic Russians had migrated to during the Soviet period. When Ukraine fell apart a month or so ago the area came under anarchy. (Now what caused Ukraine to fall apart, who pushed and who pulled and who set that up is a legit question) While this area was under anarchy Russia saw a land directly on its border with a majority of ethnic Russians in anarchy. They sent in troops and set up an election. The new Ukraine had intended to do the same thing, after rebel factions took extra constitutional action by throwing out their government, they were taking action to set up a vote that would have favored their interests.

So here we sit, to me there is no "moral" side, only the side that is in our best interests. What should we do, press for our advantage, which is the same thing Russia did, or relax and not get involved.

What I hate to see is this ranting about how we have a moral obligation to stop the evil Putin and evil Russia, any action we take is just as biased and self interested as the action they are taking.
Click to expand...

does the world (including the u s of a) want to go back the times where one nation annexes part or all of another by force of arms...of course this has been happening in africa for a while now and china is ready (if not already doing it) to do it in 'its' part of the world.

if you think the battles for land and raw resources is bad now, wait for the water wars...like the ones that we cannot resolve at home only worst when they go international.

there is not enough clean air, water and arable land right now and it is only going to get worse

oh well
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
This may be surprising to you, but welfare is in fact not dependent on race. There are black people who do not receive welfare, and white people who do.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about welfare? I was talking about political positions when I referred to the "Democrat Plantation." E.g., "Clarence Thomas is not a *real* black man."

Not welfare.

The fact that you knee-jerked the reference to be a comment about welfare means that perhaps you need to do some serious introspection about your own racial beliefs.
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
It's annoying hearing this crap from the right. You don't support war anymore than Obama does, how the hell do you think that you would've come out of this looking any less weak? There are two options that would've made strategic sense, to declare war, or to accept it on the grounds of national right to self-determination and otherwise not let yourself appear to be bothered by it. The louder you squawk without doing anything, the dumber and weaker you look. Obama has squawked a bit, sure, and looked pretty dumb in the process, but the right's idea of "strength" appears to be nothing more than to squawk extra loud.
Click to expand...
It's annoying hearing this crap from the left. Again, if the US had been strong, both militarily and economically, with the ability to export energy to Europe so that Putin couldn't hold it hostage, Ukraine wouldn't be in this position.
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
Hmm, that's not true. While there is a strange pattern in the US where the wealthiest regions tend towards the Democrats, overall the wealthiest people do tend towards Republicans and the poorest Democrats. Using the 2012 presidential exit polls as an example:

As for education, there is a pattern where the more educated tend to be more Republican, until they get to the postgraduate level:
Click to expand...
Of those with less than a high school education, more than twice are either Democrat or lean that way, compared to Republicans. source

Of the extremely rich who are Democrats (or support them), George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trust, the James Irvine Foundation, Citigroup Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Hearst Foundation, Fannie Mae Foundation, JP Morgan Foundation, Bank America Foundation, Chase Manhattan Foundation, Verizon Foundation, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, AT & T Foundation, Bell Atlantic Foundation, Citicorp Foundation, ARCO Foundation, US West Foundation, John D. MacArthur Foundation, ALCOA Foundation, Richard King Mellon Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation.... source
 
Right said:
That's his favorite word, that fucking racist. Why are Democrats so racist?
Click to expand...

The Democratic Party has always been the home for racism. They just mask it today by caring more than anyone lose on the planet and pointing at everyone else shrieking racists.

The best example can be found at any gathering where liberals are found and if there is a person of color, they will invariably walk up and ask something stupid like, "what ethnicity are you", or equally stupid, "what is you racial makeup?"

They only see colored people, not fellow Americans. My favorite was at a small local concert when the lovely young
lady serving cocktails was asked by one of these dunces where she was from; her answer: "America."

Yes, they really are THAT stupid.
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
The only UN institution with the power to issue actually binding resolutions is the Security Council, and in this matter there is no resolution because of Russia's veto power.
Click to expand...

You missed my point; UN resolutions will be meaningless/powerless without US force. who is going to enforce resolutions? France? LOL. Russia? Good luck with that.
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
The sectarian killings have more to do with long running strife between Kurds, Shi'a, and Sunni. Not everything revolves around the west, I doubt those participating in them give two shits what the west thinks.

As well, the killings under Saddam were well in the past by the time we invaded. An invasion to stop killings would be justified, IMO, I don't think it should be allowed merely as punishment for killings that occurred two decades ago. I'd also like to reiterate Annata's point with regards to Iran - going into Iraq and Afghanistan and toppling two strong, anti-Iranian governments and replacing them with weak ones of questionable legitimacy and hold on the country seriously strengthened Iran's position. I'd like to remind you that for most of the past two millenniums Afghanistan and Iraq were just the eastern and western Persia.
Click to expand...

The bolded part is incorrect; Saddam never stopped his murdering of political opponents or those who dared to speak out against his regime.

As for the claim that Iran was surrounded by two strong anti-Iranian Governments; where does that come from? Saddam was beaten to a standstill and almost lost his control over Iraq fighting Iran. Afghanistan didn't even have a military. and when was Afghanistan anti-Iranian?

As for being weak nations; both have a significantly stronger military and police presence trained by us. But again, if their fledgeling Democracies are weak, doesn't this make the case to KEEP a strong presence of UN forces in country until he great to their Democracies is contained?

I am amused by the argument that brutal dictatorships are stronger than representative Democracies.
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
It's annoying hearing this crap from the right. You don't support war anymore than Obama does, how the hell do you think that you would've come out of this looking any less weak? There are two options that would've made strategic sense, to declare war, or to accept it on the grounds of national right to self-determination and otherwise not let yourself appear to be bothered by it. The louder you squawk without doing anything, the dumber and weaker you look. Obama has squawked a bit, sure, and looked pretty dumb in the process, but the right's idea of "strength" appears to be nothing more than to squawk extra loud.
Click to expand...

Once again you're missing the point of the criticism of Obama; everyone knows he will do nothing regardless of whether he could, and yet he engages in bold rhetoric no one believes which is an embarrassment and makes the US look weak, naive and stupid.
 
jesus you people call him a relentless dictator and a wimp every couple of minutes.

You really do think hes a magic negro huh
 
evince said:
jesus you people call him a relentless dictator and a wimp every couple of minutes.

You really do think hes a magic negro huh
Click to expand...

Why do Liberals always feel compelled to use offensive terms like negro and nigger as Mainetard has? You racist race hustlers just can't help yourselves can you?
 
Truth Detector said:
The Democratic Party has always been the home for racism. They just mask it today by caring more than anyone lose on the planet and pointing at everyone else shrieking racists.

The best example can be found at any gathering where liberals are found and if there is a person of color, they will invariably walk up and ask something stupid like, "what ethnicity are you", or equally stupid, "what is you racial makeup?"

They only see colored people, not fellow Americans. My favorite was at a small local concert when the lovely young
lady serving cocktails was asked by one of these dunces where she was from; her answer: "America."

Yes, they really are THAT stupid.
Click to expand...

Interesting observation and I saw that exclusively where I grew up, Massachusetts, arguably the most Democrat state. One of the first things people do when they meet someone is to ask their "nationality". My dad, a staunch Republican has a standard answer: "American".

Here in the GOP South, no one asks that question.
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again you're missing the point of the criticism of Obama; everyone knows he will do nothing regardless of whether he could, and yet he engages in bold rhetoric no one believes which is an embarrassment and makes the US look weak, naive and stupid.
Click to expand...


So true.....

Laughing-Stocks-590-LI.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top