If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pravda)   Ukraine declares general mobilization after Russia approves use of military force in Crimea   (english.pravda.ru) divider line 217
    More: News, Crimea, Ukraine, Russia, combat readiness, Federation Council, military, President of Russia  
•       •       •

5721 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 2:27 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



217 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-02 05:50:30 AM  

saintstryfe: No one will think "Gee, the US didn't support that 20 year old treaty that didn't have any repercussions outlined... better not agree to anything with them now!" Likewise with the other signatory nations.


I agree that the Budapest Memorandum has no teeth to it. In fact, it is so hilariously devoid of any actual security assurances that it makes me wonder just what the fark Ukraine was thinking when they gave up their nukes for this:

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

However, if the spirit of the security agreement was that Ukraine would receive our protection from external aggression in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons, then we (U.S. and U.K. at the very least) must honor that agreement. There is too much at stake to NOT do so. Mutual Defense Treaties with United States will become meaningless if the U.S. picks and chooses and when it will or will not fulfill contractual obligations.

That being said, we can protect Ukraine without going to war with Russia. We can send a coalition of peace keeping forces to "help Russia" stabilize the region and prevent further Russian-separatist on Ukrainian-nationalist violence. Assuming the interim Ukrainian government requests it, of course.
 
2014-03-02 05:53:10 AM  

RandomRandom: The truth is that a President McCain or Romney wouldn't start a war with Russia either.  Though McCain would make bellicose threats to embarrass himself a lot more.


President McCain (probably) wouldn't, but President Palin almost certainly would....

/ again, what was the GOP thinking back in 2008?
 
2014-03-02 05:55:00 AM  

saintstryfe: If Cuba up and took over Guantanamo Bay tomorrow, the US would mobilize too.


You're right, we would. But that is a false analogy. Ukraine hasn't threatened to take over Russia's naval fleet in Sevastopol in any way, shape, or form.
 
2014-03-02 05:59:49 AM  

Wessoman: Whatever happens, the winner will be (And always will be) the American television viewing audience.


What viewing audience? CNN will run 'breaking news' with this story for short periods, and then go to infomercials instead of feeding in its own international coverage. Other channels are even worse.

And today is the Academy Awards, so I'll bet shiat hits the fan when that's being broadcast.
 
2014-03-02 06:07:53 AM  

RandomRandom: saintstryfe: If Cuba up and took over Guantanamo Bay tomorrow, the US would mobilize too.

Bad analogy.

Ukraine didn't take the bases.  They didn't even threaten them.

An apt analogy would be if Cuba's government fell and were replaced by one less friendly to the US.  Then, that new government did not move against Gitmo, did not threaten Gitmo, did not even question the lease for Gitmo.

Were that to happen, the US might reinforce Gitmo, but we wouldn't take over the entire south-east of Cuba.

Had Russia just reinforced their bases, this crisis wouldn't be happening.  Instead, Russia has taken government building in the civilian parts of Ukraine.  They've taken the municipal airport, and are moving tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine proper.

It's a false flag operation, right out of the Soviet playbook.


That's not a good analogy either.  A better one would be this...

Let's pretend that at some point in the future, Communist Cuba has collapsed and been replaced by a new government that is aligned with the west.  The US continues to lease Guantanamo Bay from this new Cuban government.  A lot of Cuban-Americans move back to Cuba, with many of them settling in the area around Guantanamo Bay.  Now, let's say that a popular uprising begins in one part of this new Cuba.  The protesters supporting this uprising want Cuba to lessen ties with the west and to instead strengthen ties with China.  The protesters march on Havana, and things turn violent.  The current Cuban president has strong support amongst the Cuban-American populous in the Guantanamo Bay area, but little support in Havana proper, and with a civil war looking imminent, he flees the capital.  The Havana parliament then appoints a new, pro-chinese president, while at the same time, the ousted president declares that he is still the legitimate president, and that parliament didn't legally have the right to remove him in the way they did.  The ousted president, along with his Cuban-American base, also calls for the US to help them, while publicly claiming that the protesters were supported by covert Chinese agitators.  What do you think the US would do at that point?
 
2014-03-02 06:09:40 AM  

T-Servo: Wessoman: Whatever happens, the winner will be (And always will be) the American television viewing audience.

What viewing audience? CNN will run 'breaking news' with this story for short periods, and then go to infomercials instead of feeding in its own international coverage. Other channels are even worse.

And today is the Academy Awards, so I'll bet shiat hits the fan when that's being broadcast.


Pretty much this. But what I meant is that the American people will only care as long as this crisis entertains them or directly concerns them.

Honestly, however, I think the Russians really farked up here in a big way.
 
2014-03-02 06:12:37 AM  
Dnrtfa on the page with farking popups
 
2014-03-02 06:15:16 AM  

Vantango84: Wolf892: So, in laymen speak, how close are we to WW III?

somewhere between "gonna start on Wednesday" and "Probably nothing to worry about"


i vote Wednesday!
static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-03-02 06:16:17 AM  

saintstryfe: Now, during the more happy days (from Moscow's POV) they had an agreement to have Russia have a military base where they have access to the Baltic Sea. This is in a place called Crimea, a small spigot of land on the aforementioned sea.


upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org

1) The Baltic is not the Black Sea.
2) The Crimean Peninsula is about the size of Haiti, it is by no means small.
3) You probably already know these things or you are very uninformed.
 
2014-03-02 06:16:34 AM  
"Don't mess with Girl Scouts and don't mess with soldiers,"
hear that Putin? you wanna wake up the sleeping giant?
/quote from the stolen tip jar article.
//see, I do read the articles before I make my asinine comments.
 
2014-03-02 06:18:08 AM  
10.37 UKRAINE PARLIAMENT CALLS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONITORS AND FOR NECESSARY AID TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ITS NUCLEAR ASSETS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10669670/Uk ra ine-live.html

What? Is this a reference to nuclear power plants, or is it a reference to undeclared nuclear weapons kept despite the 1994 treaty (if so, it would appear Ukraine was right to doubt the worthiness of said treaty...)
 
2014-03-02 06:21:20 AM  

paulseta: 10.37 UKRAINE PARLIAMENT CALLS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONITORS AND FOR NECESSARY AID TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ITS NUCLEAR ASSETS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10669670/Uk ra ine-live.html

What? Is this a reference to nuclear power plants, or is it a reference to undeclared nuclear weapons kept despite the 1994 treaty (if so, it would appear Ukraine was right to doubt the worthiness of said treaty...)


Could be Chernobyl. They're building a new containment thingie since the old one is falling apart.
 
2014-03-02 06:27:53 AM  

paulseta: 10.37 UKRAINE PARLIAMENT CALLS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONITORS AND FOR NECESSARY AID TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ITS NUCLEAR ASSHATS


Am I the only one who read it like that on first glance?
 
2014-03-02 06:36:37 AM  
oi62.tinypic.com
 
2014-03-02 06:39:47 AM  

Marmilman: paulseta: 10.37 UKRAINE PARLIAMENT CALLS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONITORS AND FOR NECESSARY AID TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ITS NUCLEAR ASSHATS

Am I the only one who read it like that on first glance?


Yes.
 
2014-03-02 07:04:31 AM  
NATO just seemingly threw itself behind Ukraine independence in their brief press conference held around 20 minutes ago. Interesting.
 
2014-03-02 07:23:35 AM  
Anyone have any info about Ukrainian bases in the Crimea handing over their weapons to Russian troops? Including surface to air missiles (seemed like SAM sites).

Also, FYI: the Ukrainian Navy flagship raised the Russian flag. Starting to sound like a fair amount of desertions in the Ukrainian military in Crimea for these kinds of things to happen.
 
2014-03-02 07:25:45 AM  
 
2014-03-02 07:30:01 AM  

saintstryfe: a person on reddit gave a very sober reading of what's going on. The link to the full thing is here but here's the break down if you don't get the whole thing:

Russia controlled Ukraine for several generations as part of the USSR. After the USSR broke up, Ukraine had several governments, but mostly pro-Russian, until the recent turmoil there, which looks like it will place a less friendly-to-Moscow government in place.  Now, during the more happy days (from Moscow's POV) they had an agreement to have Russia have a military base where they have access to the Baltic Sea. This is in a place called Crimea, a small spigot of land on the aforementioned sea. This place is highly Russian in its ethnic makeup, and had a referendum coming up to determine if they'd break free, stay with Ukraine, or join Russia. Now that the newgovernment has shown up, Russia's afraid that they're going to go press on people or interfere with the refrendum leading to them losing access to their Baltic fleet.

Russia has played its cards very carefully and done nothing illegal. As of right now they've let the Crimeans run the show, and they're just reinforcing the garrisons there.  Basically, right now, Russia wants to wait it out and see what happens, while making a show of strength. "Don't get involved down there, we have the ability to stop you"

Neither side has done anything that would lead to war, and I personally don't think real war is likely. Everyone wants to avoid that.

as the commentator on reddit points out, there's 3 good end games for Russia. One, they use influence to keep the access and Crimea stays with Ukraine. Two, they use political advantage to assure the new Ukrainian government has some Crimean (thus Russian) influence, thus assuring their access and influence. Three, the referendum goes their way, and they get the whole kitten caboodle - probably Crimea joins Russia as either a satellite or just joins the Russian federation. Any of these ways, it makes Putin look stron ...


I'm sure you meant the Black Sea, not Baltic.
 
2014-03-02 07:47:26 AM  
It looks like Putin has two main objectives.

1. First and foremost keep control of a fleet base in the black sea.
2. Keep Russian influence in the old USSR and Warsaw Pact countries.

The fleet base is easy to solve and will let Putin look strong (and that what he wants). Just have the Ukrainian government (with sign off from NATO and the west) sign a lease for the base for a 100 years and Putin can waive the bit of paper for home consumption showing how he is looking after Russian interests.

The next is much trickier to solve. The spread of the EU into the traditional Russian sphere of influence is seen as a direct threat with the likes of Latvia and Estonia doing well out of membership of the EU. This is the tricky thing as other eastern European nations that were once part of the USSR/Warsaw Pact are looking at this new EU and the economic success from the new members. The EU promises that new members are almost equal partners while Russia wants a traditional vassal state so who can blame them from looking west.

The optimal solution would be for a 100 year lease on the fleet base, autonomy for Crimea and a back room promises that the next few Ukrainian governments would be governments of national unity and include both pro-west and pro-Russia factions.
 
2014-03-02 07:55:01 AM  
I'm sure it's nothing.
 
2014-03-02 08:01:59 AM  

Marmilman: NUCLEAR ASSHATS


Deep down, I think we're all most concerned about the nuclear asshats.
 
2014-03-02 08:06:28 AM  

Medic Zero: Anyone have any info about Ukrainian bases in the Crimea handing over their weapons to Russian troops? Including surface to air missiles (seemed like SAM sites).

Also, FYI: the Ukrainian Navy flagship raised the Russian flag. Starting to sound like a fair amount of desertions in the Ukrainian military in Crimea for these kinds of things to happen.


Besieged UKR unit in Crimea is an elite Marine battalion. Officers have voted not to surrender despite the odds.

Link
 
2014-03-02 08:18:03 AM  

Norfolking Chance: The optimal solution would be for a 100 year lease on the fleet base, autonomy for Crimea and a back room promises that the next few Ukrainian governments would be governments of national unity and include both pro-west and pro-Russia factions.


He could have had most of that by just asking.  Or at most, quietly handing Yanukovych to the Hague.  Before he invaded Ukraine, he could probably have received assurances that Ukraine wouldn't be admitted to NATO or the EU.  He's lost that now.

His actions have put a lot of the rest of that off the table as well.   It's doubtful the present Ukrainian government would be willing to guarantee more than the current lease terms.  They won't want anything to do with a unity government if it cedes any level of control to Russian puppets, and it would.

Ukraine has mobilized their army, it's an us vs. them situation now.  If Putin pulls the men back to their bases, he'll receive assurances he can keep the bases, not much more.  If he keeps the troops in Ukraine proper, including the Crimea, he will face debilitating sanctions, expulsion from the G8, and a sharp drop in the petro sales that prop up his regime.

If he moves into Western Ukraine, he will be facing a protracted war.  That could even happen if he tries to take eastern Ukraine.  He best move now is to negotiate for whatever he can get, but it won't be much more than he had last week.
 .
 
2014-03-02 08:34:02 AM  

fusillade762: super_grass: I bet this will erupt into civil war:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x593]

2010 election results.

[img.fark.net image 850x478]

With props to 100 Watt Walrus for posting this in another thread.

So divide the country with a wall. Maybe draw some kind of metallic drape.


a split landlocks the northern country. This will not end well.
 
2014-03-02 08:38:00 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-02 08:50:26 AM  
Has Glenn Beck started peddling bomb shelters yet?
 
2014-03-02 09:01:24 AM  

LordJiro: Yeah, real smart there, Ukraine. Instead of giving up Crimea (Mostly Russian anyway, and home to the Russian Black Sea fleet so there was no way in Hell they were going to jeopardize that), you're gonna wave your dick at Putin.

God, I hope the rest of the world isn't dumb enough to get involved.



You're right. Ukraine should just give up the Sudetenland because Der Fuhror Putin wants it. Er I mean Crimea.
 
2014-03-02 09:03:14 AM  

TheWhoppah: Dear Prague,

Sudetenland is German.  It should be part of Germany.

[demotivators.despair.com image 617x435]


Ftfy
 
2014-03-02 09:09:06 AM  

RandomRandom: Norfolking Chance: The optimal solution would be for a 100 year lease on the fleet base, autonomy for Crimea and a back room promises that the next few Ukrainian governments would be governments of national unity and include both pro-west and pro-Russia factions.

He could have had most of that by just asking.  Or at most, quietly handing Yanukovych to the Hague.  Before he invaded Ukraine, he could probably have received assurances that Ukraine wouldn't be admitted to NATO or the EU.  He's lost that now.

His actions have put a lot of the rest of that off the table as well.   It's doubtful the present Ukrainian government would be willing to guarantee more than the current lease terms.  They won't want anything to do with a unity government if it cedes any level of control to Russian puppets, and it would.

Ukraine has mobilized their army, it's an us vs. them situation now.  If Putin pulls the men back to their bases, he'll receive assurances he can keep the bases, not much more.  If he keeps the troops in Ukraine proper, including the Crimea, he will face debilitating sanctions, expulsion from the G8, and a sharp drop in the petro sales that prop up his regime.

If he moves into Western Ukraine, he will be facing a protracted war.  That could even happen if he tries to take eastern Ukraine.  He best move now is to negotiate for whatever he can get, but it won't be much more than he had last week.
 .


Of course Putan could of just asked, but to Putin's mindset if you have to ask you are weak, the strong take what they want and that is what is being played out at the moment (hopefully).
 
2014-03-02 09:25:31 AM  

Romans 7 19: demaL-demaL-yeH: JonBuck: Oh, wait.  Pravda.

There is no truth in Pravda.

Pravda - well, Pravda - Pravda said: "жил был король когда-то при нем блоха жила  " It stinks.

/obscure?


That reminds me of the day I am given first original paper to write. It was on analytic and algebraic topology of locally Euclidean parameterization of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifold.
 
2014-03-02 09:35:43 AM  

ciberido: Romans 7 19: demaL-demaL-yeH: JonBuck: Oh, wait.  Pravda.

There is no truth in Pravda.

Pravda - well, Pravda - Pravda said: "жил был король когда-то при нем блоха жила  " It stinks.

/obscure?

That reminds me of the day I am given first original paper to write. It was on analytic and algebraic topology of locally Euclidean parameterization of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifold.


I remember high school, too.
 
2014-03-02 09:46:20 AM  
Guys like Putin don't understand Democratic Republics where the vote is not manipulated. A people can't collectively promise to do what Russia wants. That would be like Ireland promising England that they would never join the EU.

Big Russian bear needs to make friends, not threaten...
 
2014-03-02 09:52:56 AM  

bigpeeler: Is that everyones kneejerk reaction to anything said against their milquetoast god, Obama? Let's see how he reacts to the forthcoming world events, then get back to me. It's time for him to pull up his big-boy pants and get to work. This situation is serious.


Milquetoast for the Milquetoast God!
 
2014-03-02 10:19:38 AM  

TheWhoppah: Asa Phelps: bigpeeler: joonyer:

3.5/10

Is that everyones kneejerk reaction to anything said against their milquetoast god, Obama? Let's see how he reacts to the forthcoming world events, then get back to me. It's time for him to pull up his big-boy pants and get to work. This situation is serious.

So, what would a president with balls do?

We're all waiting to hear.

You might want to sit down for this ...


What you did there. I see it.
 
2014-03-02 10:30:46 AM  

bigpeeler: I miss the days when our President had balls.

[img.fark.net image 605x412]


Isn't that they guy that decided to let China have all of North Korea?

/he also balked at the idea of attacking Russia while we had the technological upper hand.
 
2014-03-02 10:32:27 AM  

TheWhoppah: Dear Kiev,

Sevastopol is Russian.  It should be part of Russia.

[demotivators.despair.com image 617x435]



Texas is Mexican.  It should be part of Mexico.
 
2014-03-02 10:33:25 AM  

Animatronik: Guys like Putin don't understand Democratic Republics where the vote is not manipulated. A people can't collectively promise to do what Russia wants. That would be like Ireland promising England that they would never join the EU.

Big Russian bear needs to make friends, not threaten...


You don't know many Russians, do you? They think differently. Making real friends isn't a big priority among those that I've met.
 
2014-03-02 10:38:19 AM  

saintstryfe: a person on reddit gave a very sober reading of what's going on. The link to the full thing is here but here's the break down if you don't get the whole thing:

Russia controlled Ukraine for several generations as part of the USSR. After the USSR broke up, Ukraine had several governments, but mostly pro-Russian, until the recent turmoil there, which looks like it will place a less friendly-to-Moscow government in place.  Now, during the more happy days (from Moscow's POV) they had an agreement to have Russia have a military base where they have access to the Baltic Sea. This is in a place called Crimea, a small spigot of land on the aforementioned sea. This place is highly Russian in its ethnic makeup, and had a referendum coming up to determine if they'd break free, stay with Ukraine, or join Russia. Now that the newgovernment has shown up, Russia's afraid that they're going to go press on people or interfere with the refrendum leading to them losing access to their Baltic fleet.

Russia has played its cards very carefully and done nothing illegal. As of right now they've let the Crimeans run the show, and they're just reinforcing the garrisons there.  Basically, right now, Russia wants to wait it out and see what happens, while making a show of strength. "Don't get involved down there, we have the ability to stop you"

Neither side has done anything that would lead to war, and I personally don't think real war is likely. Everyone wants to avoid that.

as the commentator on reddit points out, there's 3 good end games for Russia. One, they use influence to keep the access and Crimea stays with Ukraine. Two, they use political advantage to assure the new Ukrainian government has some Crimean (thus Russian) influence, thus assuring their access and influence. Three, the referendum goes their way, and they get the whole kitten caboodle - probably Crimea joins Russia as either a satellite or just joins the Russian federation. Any of these ways, it makes Putin look stron ...


Pretty damn much. Folks are looking to score points, they're looking to use the situation for advantage and waggle fingers, and it has very little to do with the US, looking "strong" and has every bit to do with internal politics in the region, where we have very little say. It isn't our bailiwick. The pearl clutchers are screaming, the news has every interest at this point to drive up coverage, and try to keep folks glued to their sets, and the commentators all have their own agendas, but that has little to do with the actual situation.

The Ossetian crisis was similar. Russia rolled out tanks when dual citizens were under not just fire, but had tanks rolled out to suppress them. The Ossetians were looking at very probable ethnic cleansing, because their neighbors remembered that they had invited the Bolsheviks in when their neighbors had decided that they needed their land, and really didn't like them all that much, and once again they turned to their neighbors to the North for assistance. While there was hue and cry from the folks who STILL see Russia as the dirty Reds, it was less about the US and the West--who oddly enough had done little and had little interest in their protection, and supported them little when they tried to gain their independence on their own to protect themselves from their somewhat unruly neighbors--and entirely internal matters.

Thus far the Russians have done what the US would be doing in a similar situation if Mexico had a sea change and unrest throughout--and if there were a bunch of folks from El Norte who settled across the border--and that is to secure our interests. It boils down to a lot of folks who still see Russia as villains, and there are still elements in Russia who should scare the bejeebus out of folks, but it's not about the Evil Empire, but a nation with a lot of factions, and neighbors with a lot of factions, that have little to do with US interests, save in that they provide some fuel and material to Europe. Could the Russians do some damage to Ukraine if they start shooting? For damn sure. But that has been the case since the fall of the USSR and the split of the nation. Would Russia like a new satellite to secure their interests? Yup. And they've streamlined the process if the Crimea would like to join up. But at this point, that is up in the air. And in the meantime, they have vital interest in keeping their access, and keeping area around that port secure and relatively calm, if the rest of the nation decides to start up a full blown civil war.

The realities of the situation are far less melodramatic than the news agencies are trying to spin it--and likewise, they are ignoring the situation in Ukraine as a whole, to instead mine some easy time to point at the Russians who are doing exactly what they should be doing, in securing their interests while the nation is in dodgy territory internally.
 
2014-03-02 10:39:42 AM  

LordJiro: Yeah, real smart there, Ukraine. Instead of giving up Crimea (Mostly Russian anyway, and home to the Russian Black Sea fleet so there was no way in Hell they were going to jeopardize that), you're gonna wave your dick at Putin.

God, I hope the rest of the world isn't dumb enough to get involved.


chuckgallagher.files.wordpress.com


Hi, what's going on in this thread?
 
2014-03-02 11:00:15 AM  

bigpeeler: joonyer:

3.5/10

Is that everyones kneejerk reaction to anything said against their milquetoast god, Obama? Let's see how he reacts to the forthcoming world events, then get back to me. It's time for him to pull up his big-boy pants and get to work. This situation is serious.


But not serious enough for you to propose any specifics, or, god forbid, fly over there yourself to help out the Ukrainians.

/If it walks like a chickenhawk, and talks like a chickenhawk...
 
2014-03-02 11:01:55 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-02 11:02:56 AM  
www.johndclare.net

Hey, we're getting the band back together!
 
2014-03-02 12:00:03 PM  

Wessoman: Wolf892: So, in laymen speak, how close are we to WW III?

I know I may sound arrogant but meh. This is Russia we're talking about. Our army was built to fark them up. Thing is, America doesn't really give much of a damn about the Crimea and really doesn't want to get involved in another war, but at the same time we gotta show Putin that our balls are still hairy and that we aren't afraid to turn the Russian 20th guards Army into a large collection of burned out T-90's and depleted uranium flavored corpses if so we wanted to.

Whatever happens, the winner will be (And always will be) the American television viewing audience.


That's one hell of a road march - Voronezh to Simferopol, especially if they don't cut across Ukraine.
 
2014-03-02 12:12:43 PM  
The US should "lend/lease" Ukraine military hardware like some/most of those 3000 parked M-1 Abrams tanks that were designed specifically to fight a land war between tanks in this area of the world.

Kiev should move its forces to their legal border, while making an announcement to those of Russian nationality/connection/heritage:

If you want to live under Russian control, please move to Russia!
If you decide to stay we will defend you and our soveriegn borders.
If you want to continue living in Ukraine, please help us to keep you living in Ukraine, by not helping the Russians take over Ukrainian territory.

That way it reverses the narrative that Russia is writing, that it is just "preparing" to "protect" it's ex-pat population in Ukraine from attacks.
Make it official that those Russian speaking people will be defended from harm, just like any other population in Ukraine.

Of course that means that the government and military of Ukraine would have to actually undertake the protections and restraints to back up that promise, which could be tough if the right-wing nationalists are powerful in the new government.
 
2014-03-02 12:16:00 PM  
Don't fool yourself, we'd do the same damn thing if it was the two million ex pats living in Mexico or one of our far-flung military bases being threatened. Hell, we're doing it already with our Special Ops all over the world. This is not as big a deal as the media makes it out to be.
 
2014-03-02 12:38:19 PM  

Degenz: Don't fool yourself, we'd do the same damn thing if it was the two million ex pats living in Mexico or one of our far-flung military bases being threatened. Hell, we're doing it already with our Special Ops all over the world. This is not as big a deal as the media makes it out to be.


Yeah, but did you actively relocate the original inhabitants from their homelands to less desireable places so you could put your own people there?

Oh, wait.....
 
2014-03-02 01:07:16 PM  
Actually Degenz, the US has faced similar situations without building up military forces and demanding territorial expansion when our ex-pats or military bases were "threatened" by political unrest in a foriegn nation.

Berlin Airlift
Cuban Missle Crisis

In fact most of our far flung military bases/establishments have been largely placed there because there have been other countries trying to do exactly what Russia is doing to Ukraine today.

South Korea, Taiwan, Japan - (As they can only have a defensive force, enforced by the constitution that we wrote for them and they ratified at the end of occupation in 1955 currently limits them, although recently the Parliament has been considering changing that), Phillipines, Cuba, Del Fuego Garcia, etc.

Wherever a continuing threat of violence and annexation is present, the US has established bases with the hosting country's consent.

I don't see anybody's consent being asked for by the Russians in this move, nor has this move been in response to genuine threats to their ex-pats in Eastern Ukraine. All I see is Nazi style propaganda coming from the Russian "news agencies" and Russian Troop reinforcement and political posturing threatening Ukrainian soveriegnty.

Please give an instance when the US has acted this way in almost 75 years. There have been quite a few unfortunate times, up until the mid-1920's where we have been colonial, and agressors for the sake of territorial gain to our near neighbors, and in China, and elsewhere, so the US isn't any different until the post WWII era really.
Since then, the US hasn't acted in that manner, and actually has pursued a policy of trying to get countries not to attack each other for territorial disputes regardless of which population decendency is at stake.

We got it wrong in Vietnam.
We got it all wrong in Iraq II, where we broke the country, and then tried to repair it for 9 more years, but we weren't successful in that at all.
Iraq probably should be 3 countries at this point- Suni, Shi'a and Kurd
Afghanistan, will probably be a failure in the end also, but for historical/traditional/cultural reasons rather than the actual activity that we went in to halt in the first place.
Afghanistan should probably be 4 or 5 countries, probably broken into its provincial regional designations.
Pakistan would also benefit from such a breakup as well, as the differences between West and East are substantial.
 
2014-03-02 01:21:58 PM  

the_cnidarian: bigpeeler: joonyer:

3.5/10

Is that everyones kneejerk reaction to anything said against their milquetoast god, Obama? Let's see how he reacts to the forthcoming world events, then get back to me. It's time for him to pull up his big-boy pants and get to work. This situation is serious.

You think POTUS is a god. Nobody else does. He is part of a nonprofit corporation ruled by us. That includes you. Grab your bootstraps and quit blaming the president for imaginary future infractions.


It's totally natural to think this potus is god when everyone thought the last one was the devil.
 
2014-03-02 01:29:06 PM  

Acravius: Wherever a continuing threat of violence and annexation is present, the US has established bases with the hosting country's consent.


There you go.
 
Displayed 50 of 217 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report