What Are the US Goals In Ukraine?

[The Rabbi]

Using the logic of the kooks here.....the US could invade Canada between Winnipeg and Calgary which is mostly "conservative" English speaking Canada. Those Canadians are different than their west coast, east coast and Quebec Canadians.

We have nukes, we have a stronger military and western Canada votes like Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas.....

Or Mexico could invade the US to protect all the ethnic Hispanics. It's absurd logic.

The difference is that the Crimea is historically Russian, not Ukrainian. The problem is going to be if Russia tries to do the same in areas like the Baltics which are not historically Russian but have large Russian populations from the Soviet days.

New Mexico, Arizona and other places are historically Mexican. There is even a small persecuted minority of Hispanics that agitate for just that. Mexico is just coming in and insuring their rights.

It's a non argument. But the non argument will be repeated with Latvia and all the other places Russia moves on.

 

[kaz]

Or Mexico could invade the US to protect all the ethnic Hispanics. It's absurd logic.

The difference is that the Crimea is historically Russian, not Ukrainian. The problem is going to be if Russia tries to do the same in areas like the Baltics which are not historically Russian but have large Russian populations from the Soviet days.

New Mexico, Arizona and other places are historically Mexican. There is even a small persecuted minority of Hispanics that agitate for just that. Mexico is just coming in and insuring their rights.

It's a non argument. But the non argument will be repeated with Latvia and all the other places Russia moves on.

The Crimea was actually Russian, part of Russia, and populated by Russians. Comparing that to land owned by Mexico that had three people in it until Americans started moving in is ridiculous.

I didn't argue that it's right, I am saying that Russia is going to go to the wall for this. My career has been in business strategy. I will take risks, big ones. But I don't do hail Marys with no plan that even I think has any chance of working.

Explain what positive outcome you expect out of this? Russia is never leaving the Crimea. They won't respond to boycotts any more than we would if China said give us Hawaii or we'll boycott you. Explain what your objective is.

 

[The Rabbi]

The difference is that the Crimea is historically Russian, not Ukrainian. The problem is going to be if Russia tries to do the same in areas like the Baltics which are not historically Russian but have large Russian populations from the Soviet days.

New Mexico, Arizona and other places are historically Mexican. There is even a small persecuted minority of Hispanics that agitate for just that. Mexico is just coming in and insuring their rights.

It's a non argument. But the non argument will be repeated with Latvia and all the other places Russia moves on.

The Crimea was actually Russian, part of Russia, and populated by Russians. Comparing that to land owned by Mexico that had three people in it until Americans started moving in is ridiculous.

I didn't argue that it's right, I am saying that Russia is going to go to the wall for this. My career has been in business strategy. I will take risks, big ones. But I don't do hail Marys with no plan that even I think has any chance of working.

Explain what positive outcome you expect out of this? Russia is never leaving the Crimea. They won't respond to boycotts any more than we would if China said give us Hawaii or we'll boycott you. Explain what your objective is.

My objective? To win debates here. But in terms of what we need to do in Ukraine, we need to rein in Putin and let him know his landgrab is illegal and unacceptable. He needs to take his troops out of Ukraine and quit threatening them. He needs to live up to agreements that he signed that guarantee territorial integrity of Ukraine. This needs to happen because otherwise he will do the same thing to other countries with Russian populations in them until he has re-established the Soviet Union.

 

[kaz]

New Mexico, Arizona and other places are historically Mexican. There is even a small persecuted minority of Hispanics that agitate for just that. Mexico is just coming in and insuring their rights.

It's a non argument. But the non argument will be repeated with Latvia and all the other places Russia moves on.

The Crimea was actually Russian, part of Russia, and populated by Russians. Comparing that to land owned by Mexico that had three people in it until Americans started moving in is ridiculous.

I didn't argue that it's right, I am saying that Russia is going to go to the wall for this. My career has been in business strategy. I will take risks, big ones. But I don't do hail Marys with no plan that even I think has any chance of working.

Explain what positive outcome you expect out of this? Russia is never leaving the Crimea. They won't respond to boycotts any more than we would if China said give us Hawaii or we'll boycott you. Explain what your objective is.

My objective? To win debates here. But in terms of what we need to do in Ukraine, we need to rein in Putin and let him know his landgrab is illegal and unacceptable. He needs to take his troops out of Ukraine and quit threatening them. He needs to live up to agreements that he signed that guarantee territorial integrity of Ukraine. This needs to happen because otherwise he will do the same thing to other countries with Russian populations in them until he has re-established the Soviet Union.

Again, the Crimea isn't just populated by Russians, it historically is part of Russia. All you have is the weak analogy to virtually unpopulated land a couple centuries ago. They aren't going to back down. So after you follow Obama's plan of looking weak and ineffective and not accomplishing anything, how is that going to deter Putin exactly going forward?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Crimea was actually Russian, part of Russia, and populated by Russians. Comparing that to land owned by Mexico that had three people in it until Americans started moving in is ridiculous.

I didn't argue that it's right, I am saying that Russia is going to go to the wall for this. My career has been in business strategy. I will take risks, big ones. But I don't do hail Marys with no plan that even I think has any chance of working.

Explain what positive outcome you expect out of this? Russia is never leaving the Crimea. They won't respond to boycotts any more than we would if China said give us Hawaii or we'll boycott you. Explain what your objective is.

My objective? To win debates here. But in terms of what we need to do in Ukraine, we need to rein in Putin and let him know his landgrab is illegal and unacceptable. He needs to take his troops out of Ukraine and quit threatening them. He needs to live up to agreements that he signed that guarantee territorial integrity of Ukraine. This needs to happen because otherwise he will do the same thing to other countries with Russian populations in them until he has re-established the Soviet Union.

Again, the Crimea isn't just populated by Russians, it historically is part of Russia. All you have is the weak analogy to virtually unpopulated land a couple centuries ago. They aren't going to back down. So after you follow Obama's plan of looking weak and ineffective and not accomplishing anything, how is that going to deter Putin exactly going forward?

It is not historically part of Russia, depending on the history. But it is legally part of Ukraine, and Russia signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity. Which agreement they have broken.

All you have is some Russian propaganda and no plan other than surrender.

 

[kaz]

My objective? To win debates here. But in terms of what we need to do in Ukraine, we need to rein in Putin and let him know his landgrab is illegal and unacceptable. He needs to take his troops out of Ukraine and quit threatening them. He needs to live up to agreements that he signed that guarantee territorial integrity of Ukraine. This needs to happen because otherwise he will do the same thing to other countries with Russian populations in them until he has re-established the Soviet Union.

Again, the Crimea isn't just populated by Russians, it historically is part of Russia. All you have is the weak analogy to virtually unpopulated land a couple centuries ago. They aren't going to back down. So after you follow Obama's plan of looking weak and ineffective and not accomplishing anything, how is that going to deter Putin exactly going forward?

It is not historically part of Russia, depending on the history. But it is legally part of Ukraine, and Russia signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity. Which agreement they have broken.

All you have is some Russian propaganda and no plan other than surrender.

You've presented no plan other than flying feathers. As for Russian propaganda, first, you don't know what you're talking about that it's not historically Russian. Do some research. Second, you're going to the liberal playbook again. If I say there is nothing we can do, suddenly I'm for them. Just like when I point out Putin kicked Obama's ass in Syria that meant I worshiped him.

 

[dblack]

If I had my way: none. We shouldn't have any 'goals' in the Ukraine. We don't live there.

 

[kaz]

no plan other than surrender.

BTW, what does this mean? How is our not taking up the gauntlet to drive the Russians out of the Ukraine surrendering? They invaded us? They invaded NATO? No, they didn't. It sucks, but how did it become our conflict? Now the standard is that any time anyone does anything bad in the world it's automatically our conflict and if we don't stop it we're surrendering? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, the Crimea isn't just populated by Russians, it historically is part of Russia. All you have is the weak analogy to virtually unpopulated land a couple centuries ago. They aren't going to back down. So after you follow Obama's plan of looking weak and ineffective and not accomplishing anything, how is that going to deter Putin exactly going forward?

It is not historically part of Russia, depending on the history. But it is legally part of Ukraine, and Russia signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity. Which agreement they have broken.

All you have is some Russian propaganda and no plan other than surrender.

You've presented no plan other than flying feathers. As for Russian propaganda, first, you don't know what you're talking about that it's not historically Russian. Do some research. Second, you're going to the liberal playbook again. If I say there is nothing we can do, suddenly I'm for them. Just like when I point out Putin kicked Obama's ass in Syria that meant I worshiped him.

It isnt up to me to present a comprehensive plan. You asked what I thought the goals should be. I told you.
Second, you go do some research.
Third, quit putting words in my mouth. I never said you were for them. Nor did I say you were for Putin because he kicked Obama's ass in Syria (which I agree with).

 

[The Rabbi]

no plan other than surrender.

BTW, what does this mean? How is our not taking up the gauntlet to drive the Russians out of the Ukraine surrendering? They invaded us? They invaded NATO? No, they didn't. It sucks, but how did it become our conflict? Now the standard is that any time anyone does anything bad in the world it's automatically our conflict and if we don't stop it we're surrendering? Absolutely ridiculous.

We signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity. Anytime someone violates an agreement with us we should just suck it up and take it?
The narco-libtards are of the mind that unless foreign troops are actually invading their living room everything is OK.

 

[kaz]

If I had my way: none. We shouldn't have any 'goals' in the Ukraine. We don't live there.

It sucks, but we're overextended now. I think we should support the Europeans in any reasonable measures they decide to take, but tell them it's on them.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I had my way: none. We shouldn't have any 'goals' in the Ukraine. We don't live there.

It sucks, but we're overextended now. I think we should support the Europeans in any reasonable measures they decide to take, but tell them it's on them.

That worked really well in Bosnia. Oh, wait.

 

[kaz]

It is not historically part of Russia, depending on the history. But it is legally part of Ukraine, and Russia signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity. Which agreement they have broken.

All you have is some Russian propaganda and no plan other than surrender.

You've presented no plan other than flying feathers. As for Russian propaganda, first, you don't know what you're talking about that it's not historically Russian. Do some research. Second, you're going to the liberal playbook again. If I say there is nothing we can do, suddenly I'm for them. Just like when I point out Putin kicked Obama's ass in Syria that meant I worshiped him.

It isnt up to me to present a comprehensive plan. You asked what I thought the goals should be. I told you.

Goals are irrelevant without a plan. That was what I was referring to when I said you were following Obama's plan. Set a goal, tell people what it is, do nothing to back it up.

Second, you go do some research.

I did that when the conflict started. I was thinking it was historically Russian and only transferred as a gesture under the Soviets, but I actually do as I say when I mock people for not Googling. I searched to reaffirm I remembered that correctly. I did. Your turn, because you're wrong. It's historically Russian.

Third, quit putting words in my mouth. I never said you were for them. Nor did I say you were for Putin because he kicked Obama's ass in Syria (which I agree with).

I'm not sure how you process that when you tell me I'm swallowing their propaganda you aren't telling me I'm for them. As for the Putin, that was the analogy. I'm saying the liberals are doing that, not that you are. But you are doing the same thing with the reference I'm actually advocating their position (swallowing their propaganda).

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure how you process that when you tell me I'm swallowing their propaganda you aren't telling me I'm for them.

I can't get past the stupidity and ignorance of this one remark. It is like a leftist spouting off.
Sorry, debate is impossible with someone who thinks that. Thanks and good luck.

 

[kaz]

If I had my way: none. We shouldn't have any 'goals' in the Ukraine. We don't live there.

It sucks, but we're overextended now. I think we should support the Europeans in any reasonable measures they decide to take, but tell them it's on them.

That worked really well in Bosnia. Oh, wait.

We should have stayed out of Bosnia. And Kosovo. And let the Europeans lead. I'm not saying the Europeans will do anything, I'm saying they won't. They aren't our conflicts, so we should tell the Euros we love you man, we're right behind you. Then we can pitch a tent and relax because they're not going anywhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

It sucks, but we're overextended now. I think we should support the Europeans in any reasonable measures they decide to take, but tell them it's on them.

That worked really well in Bosnia. Oh, wait.

We should have stayed out of Bosnia. And Kosovo. And let the Europeans lead. I'm not saying the Europeans will do anything, I'm saying they won't. They aren't our conflicts, so we should tell the Euros we love you man, we're right behind you. Then we can pitch a tent and relax because they're not going anywhere.

Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.

John Stuart Mill.

 

[Redfish]

no plan other than surrender.

BTW, what does this mean? How is our not taking up the gauntlet to drive the Russians out of the Ukraine surrendering? They invaded us? They invaded NATO? No, they didn't. It sucks, but how did it become our conflict? Now the standard is that any time anyone does anything bad in the world it's automatically our conflict and if we don't stop it we're surrendering? Absolutely ridiculous.

We signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity. Anytime someone violates an agreement with us we should just suck it up and take it?
The narco-libtards are of the mind that unless foreign troops are actually invading their living room everything is OK.

We have no business getting involved in crimea. the people voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. They obviously believe that is in their best interests.

Bring Kerry back home and lock his silly ass up in an office somewhere, he and obama embarrass us every time they open their pie holes.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure how you process that when you tell me I'm swallowing their propaganda you aren't telling me I'm for them.

I can't get past the stupidity and ignorance of this one remark. It is like a leftist spouting off.
Sorry, debate is impossible with someone who thinks that. Thanks and good luck.

Think about it. What is the purpose of propaganda? It's misinformation meant to sway opinions. When you say it's their propaganda, you are saying I am influenced by their propaganda to support their position. That's the intent of propaganda. How do you not get that? The only thing I can think of is you are thinking I'm saying you're saying I'm for Russia generally, which isn't what I thought. I thought you were just referring to their "propaganda" over the Crimea.

And that Crimea is historically Russian isn't misinformation, it's fact. And I am not favoring their taking the Crimea, I'm just saying this isn't our fight and it isn't winnable and we should move on. I am not in favor of endorsing it, just recognizing it for what it is.

 

[Redfish]

I'm not sure how you process that when you tell me I'm swallowing their propaganda you aren't telling me I'm for them.

I can't get past the stupidity and ignorance of this one remark. It is like a leftist spouting off.
Sorry, debate is impossible with someone who thinks that. Thanks and good luck.

I usually agree with you, but you are wrong on this one.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure how you process that when you tell me I'm swallowing their propaganda you aren't telling me I'm for them.

I can't get past the stupidity and ignorance of this one remark. It is like a leftist spouting off.
Sorry, debate is impossible with someone who thinks that. Thanks and good luck.

I usually agree with you, but you are wrong on this one.

No, I am not wrong.
Kaz might believe that Russia is wrong overall but somehow justified because of this. Just like he might believe 9/11 happened as "blowback" against US foreign policy. Tht doesnt mean he favors Islamic terrorists. Just that he believes some of what they say. Same here.