General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumshrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)....BOOOO! They would be very scary but wouldn't bump their butts on landing.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)11. Hillary should testify. Rice should explain why she said what she said.
And who told her to say it.
There should be transparency.
That video, which at the time was called a "film," took center-stage as the reason for the attacks in Benghazi, when those inside the admin evidently knew otherwise. It seems the American people were misled in the process.
I'm a big fan of Hillary.
I'm a bigger fan of the truth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=251184
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm shocked the OP would beat that Benghazi drum.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Most of DU knows exactly what you are, Creek. That's why so many refuse to interact with you.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024185942
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024569753
can you tell me then what all the recommends and replies to these threads were if everyone is just avoiding me?
or do you mean the gungeoners are avoiding me? well, not really, they follow me around and accuse me of stalking them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Cha
(297,290 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)The sanctions will not result in Russia undoing the Crimea annexation. That's the bottom line.
US military force should never even enter the discussion.
1000words
(7,051 posts)which will immediately give way to an awkward, uneasy feeling of hypocrisy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I'm tired of playing the world's policeman without the benefit of anyone else's taxes (including those of our 1 percent).
moondust
(19,991 posts)I think they have a lot more at stake than the U.S. and would know better what's possible.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)though I think worldwide sanctions should be tried.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I mean, if the invasion is underway, we have a window to fly in and engage the invaders. Should we do that? In the name of freedom and sovereignty? Should we be part of a NATO military response? Would anything less seem like a green light?
Is the reality that we're just powerless in the situation?
Do we talk big and let it happen, or act with strength to stop it?
It really is a big deal with big implications.
The world will see a dominant force emerge from this conflict, and it will be Russia, or the USA/West. The actual world order could change. Worst case, and I pray this doesn't happen, a world war could be sparked.
Dangerous, scary situation. And the world, for the moment, looks to us.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)why try sanctions when we can just start World War 3?
i should have known better than to encourage you by responding to your thread.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 03:49 AM - Edit history (2)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Why should it even be asked whether we are "powerless" here? That is the wrong question.
The question should be, what threat does any of this have on the people of the US? None? Okay, then use whatever diplomatic means are available to express our discomfort for the actions, and get back to our own business.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I think American troops facing Russian troops on a battlefield would be a nightmare. But then today you have Biden saying we will defend our allies. So you know the subject of a military response is on the table in some fashion. I mean, I think there's a realistic chance Russia will move in to Ukraine beyond Crimea. And we will have to respond in some way. I think asking how is a valid question.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)a new policy. Ukraine is not in NATO, so his "warning" really doesn't change anything. There is no military response on the table for Ukraine.
If Russia decides to move into Ukraine, we are not obligated to get involved, nor should we.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)at higher levels of our government and others. Other options are sanctions etc. Should we impose sanctions? If we have no obligation to Ukraine, why should we respond at all, in any way?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Does anyone here, or anywhere, think that US and EU sanctions will cause Russia to go "dang, I guess we better give Crimea back up. Almost had it!" It's laughable. Sanctions will not undo the annexation. Sanctions won't stop Russia from moving further into Ukraine either. But, I don't think that is going to happen anyway. I don't think that is in the plans at all.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Sanctions likely will only hurt the people. Military action would be scary as hell. But I am not so sure Russia doesn't have its sights set on all of Ukraine. And if it does, and moves against Ukraine, with sanctions being a bad response and military action being a worse response, we get back to my original question - how do we respond? Or do we not respond at all? And what are the implications of that?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)publicly denouncing the actions and let the people of Ukraine sort it out. It is an internal issue. The sooner the US learns to stay out of these kinds of situations the better.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and now you claim not to take a position?
what is the purpose of this post?
do you actually not have an opinion or are you afraid to post that opinion here?
you say you're not taking a position, that's bullshit:
10. What is the worst sanctions can do to Russia? Should there be a military response instead?
I mean, if the invasion is underway, we have a window to fly in and engage the invaders. Should we do that? In the name of freedom and sovereignty? Should we be part of a NATO military response? Would anything less seem like a green light?
Is the reality that we're just powerless in the situation?
Do we talk big and let it happen, or act with strength to stop it?
It really is a big deal with big implications.
The world will see a dominant force emerge from this conflict, and it will be Russia, or the USA/West. The actual world order could change. Worst case, and I pray this doesn't happen, a world war could be sparked.
Dangerous, scary situation. And the world, for the moment, looks to us.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)if there was some behind-the-scenes, "we got your back" deal made if the shit hits the fan...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Your reputation is safe.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Do we talk big and let it happen, or act with strength to stop it?
It really is a big deal with big implications.
The world will see a dominant force emerge from this conflict, and it will be Russia, or the USA/West. The actual world order could change. Worst case, and I pray this doesn't happen, a world war could be sparked.
Because, of course, invading Ukraine would instantly elevate Russia over North America and Europe and China, despite the fact its GDP is smaller than Italy's or Brazil's.
Unless we BOMB.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Do you think they're all sitting around in the fog you seem to be in, refusing to consider all possibilities?
Examining an issue and being thoughtful about it, and exploring and evaluating possible scenarios, is clearly beyond your capabilities.
Don't you have an ACA thread to troll, maybe make fun of somebody's health care situation?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Even fuckstick McCain isn't saying that's on the table. Only extremists like Kristol think it's on the table.
Even the bellicose nutters in the Bush administration realized that re: Georgia.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)based on your posts about Benghazi and now the Ukraine, it would seem the comparison is apt.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)If Ukraine is invaded and fights, it will fight alone, certainly during the 'conventional war' phase of the thing. Weapons might be supplied, but no more. The various nuclear arsenals, not only of Russia and the United States, but also of France and England, will ensure that.
A Russian invasion of Ukraine which succeeds in the conventional phase will certainly rear up a serious partisan resistance, and this very likely would receive serious assistance, a good portion of it from other countries which were formerly under Soviet and Russian domination. There is real longstanding hatred there.
A guerrilla war in the center of Europe would be something very disturbing all around, very bad for business, and a serious drain on Russia, which likely cannot really afford the costs of such a venture.
The proper response to a Russian military incursion into Ukraine proper would be serious economic sanctions; cessation of most trade, seizure of assets, isolation from banking and financial networks.
The thing must come at a price.
Cha
(297,290 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)but why should we be surprised? it's the basic PR strategy of the Republican party.
consider the source.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)And I do not accept your characterization of the O.P., a former moderator here.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)It was upon reading the subsequent posts by the author that my questions arose. Sadly. I thought Lindsday Graham could have typed some of the subsequent posts.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)reduce or end their dependence on Russian gas and oil. It would be a particular problem for Germany.
Of course, if we were to sell to Europe, we would either be under forced conservation here or go even more madly into fracking here, which is not something that many here would want to do.
That's assuming that Russia won't then be able to sell to other markets, particularly in eastern or southern Asia.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Plus finger-pointing at people that are not sufficiently outraged over the reappearance of Hitler!!!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)If it isn't a 3rd world Military we are hitting, then we wont do anything.
Which is the proper response.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Or perhaps this?
Or even this.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The government, its military, and the establishment these support including the corporate players are not a "we" that a democratic people should employ as though it is self-evident. My we is in the street outside these institutions, usually, calling for their radical reform or sometimes abolition. It may not be your we.
"The US" is way too big for a self-evident we (though it may be appropriate if you define what you mean). And "The West"? Really?
These are the constructs that nationalist conflicts require. Think of all the Ukrainians backing the coup d'etat and thinking, "that's us," or the Russians backing the invasion and thinking, "We have taken possession of Crimea." That's bullshit, that's why we have this situation in the first place: too much We and They.
I do not favor interventionist strategies based on military presence or covert action of any kind.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Let the Euro's figure it out.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)Ones that have been floated.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)that hopefully won't hurt our 1%ers as much as theirs.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)We need our claws out of there. We cause damage wherever we go. We need to stop.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Redford
(373 posts)She would not put up with this crap.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Not should of. Should have.
Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
Redford
(373 posts)I know it tiresome for me to have to worry about other people's pet peeves.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I don't really do that, pretty much, at all. That particular, "should of," caught my eye though. I had seen it recently elsewhere. "Should of," makes no sense. "Should have," or "Should've," is what you actually mean. Maybe the spoken "should've" has been construed to be written "should of," but still, that is incorrect as the words "should" and "of" only pair if "should" is followed by a phrase that starts with "of," as in "...he should, of course, blablabla."
No need to worry about my pet peeves. I mean, that whole "should of" thing just kinda screams to me, and I replied when I saw it. Thought it might possibly spark a cordial exchange. Didn't mean to cause you any stress.