What Are the US Goals In Ukraine?

[Camp]

Why Does Ukraine Seem So Much Like Syria?

Daniel McAdams

US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was recorded plotting the overthrow and replacement of the Ukrainian government with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

Pyatt, a man surely devoid of any sense of self-reflection, boldly proclaimed that his recorded plotting to overthrow of the Ukrainian government was merely “helping to build bridges between the government and the opposition.” Of course in a strict sense that is true: he is actively engaged in building a bridge to government power for the Ukrainian opposition."

.

You can make the letters as giant size as you want, that will not make your link an actual link to an actual news or journalistic sight. Daniel McAdams in a libertarian political commentator and operative and the Lew Rockwell sight is a libertarian sight. Both are directly connected to Ron Paul. Nothing wrong with that, but they are not, and are not expected to be OBJECTIVE NEWS SOURCES.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, an "objective news source , by which I am certain you mean , a government controlled source.

Well here is the "objective" (wink, wink) news source


CBS/APFebruary 7, 2014, 6:59 AM


Top U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland, Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt caught out in private chat leaked online

.

Do you not see the difference between "plotting the overthrow" and "private chat"? The CBS report concentrated on the two diplomats comments about the EU that were embarrassing once their conversation was made public. The audio is available for public consumption and judgement. The article from the libertarian site made unsubstantiated claims of "plotting to overthrow" which is nothing more than a claim, fairly called misrepresentation if not an outright lie. But political commentators are not held to the same standards as news sources that at least make the claim to be objective and have to defend their accuracy in reporting to even claim legitimacy

Just go to Youtube and type in "FUCK THE EU" and listen to the audio of the "plotting the overthrow" and discover how easy it is for folks with political agenda's to snooker their base with misinformation.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, we may have a moral committment but we have no national interest----you do see the difference, right?

If we made a legal commitment that is not a moral commitment. You understand the difference, right? And isn't living up to commitments both a moral issue and an issue vital to national security?

first, no international treaty is a "legal" committment. There is no body of international law to make such a treaty legal or illegal, or to enforce it. So the only thing it could be is a moral or ethical commitment. We ignore those every day--not saying that is right, just stating facts.

Crimea is not our fight. let the people who live there decide who they want leading them. They voted for Russia, we should STFU and leave them alone. there is no US national security issue involved in crimea rejoining russia

Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.

 

[The Rabbi]

If we had a sane national energy policy in this country, this would not be worth discussing. Why do we think we have to control every "strategic" country in the world? is south korea "strategic"? how about taiwan? how is the US national interest served by the billions we spend protecting those two countries?

Yeah, the Ukraine has oil and food. It does them no good unless they sell it.

If we could go back in history and change how we got into some of these situations and how we handled them, then I'd love to be able to do that. However, to sell out countries now that are entirely dependent on us for defense and are now Western Democracies because of us would clearly embolden our enemies and jeopardize our interest.

Europe and the middle east are different, Europe doesn't need our defense and we don't belong in the Middle East and we're just propping up despots hated by their people.

if those countries want us to have bases there to protect them, then they should pay 100% of the cost of the bases.

We thought that there was some national interest in "saving" south viet nam----Duh, not ! The commies won, the country is doing fine and we wasted 58,000 american lives and billions of dollars for NOTHING.

I am sure the South Vietnamese boat people and the Cambodians slaughtered in the killing fields have a slightly different opinion.

 

[Contumacious]

You can make the letters as giant size as you want, that will not make your link an actual link to an actual news or journalistic sight. Daniel McAdams in a libertarian political commentator and operative and the Lew Rockwell sight is a libertarian sight. Both are directly connected to Ron Paul. Nothing wrong with that, but they are not, and are not expected to be OBJECTIVE NEWS SOURCES.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, an "objective news source , by which I am certain you mean , a government controlled source.

Well here is the "objective" (wink, wink) news source


CBS/APFebruary 7, 2014, 6:59 AM


Top U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland, Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt caught out in private chat leaked online

.

Do you not see the difference between "plotting the overthrow" and "private chat"?

No, I do not.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNTXHXZpLXI"]Daniel McAdams assessment is correct.[/ame]

.

 

[tinydancer]

Why do you call this an "illegal coup"? Do you not recognize the parliaments use of Article 108 Part 3 and Article 111 of the Ukraine Constitution? Is it your belief that the parliament did not have the right to impeach Yanukovich as specified in the Constitution?

Why Does Ukraine Seem So Much Like Syria?

Daniel McAdams

US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was recorded plotting the overthrow and replacement of the Ukrainian government with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

Pyatt, a man surely devoid of any sense of self-reflection, boldly proclaimed that his recorded plotting to overthrow of the Ukrainian government was merely “helping to build bridges between the government and the opposition.” Of course in a strict sense that is true: he is actively engaged in building a bridge to government power for the Ukrainian opposition."

.

You can make the letters as giant size as you want, that will not make your link an actual link to an actual news or journalistic sight. Daniel McAdams in a libertarian political commentator and operative and the Lew Rockwell sight is a libertarian sight. Both are directly connected to Ron Paul. Nothing wrong with that, but they are not, and are not expected to be OBJECTIVE NEWS SOURCES. The link you give offers an opinion and interpretation of events that can be interpreted and has been interpreted in a totally different way by others. Your link gives access to political opinions by folks who have specific political agenda's and earn a living by promoting specific political agenda's. They spin stories to support their agenda's. That is how they make a living.

So the question remains unanswered. The Ukraine Constitution provides for the Parliament to impeach it's President with the specific sections I have supplied, Articale 108 Part 3 and Article 111. The Constitution was followed and the President was impeached and replaced by specific procedure as outlined in the Constitution. So how specifially was this a "coup" or illegal?

After they had driven many away in fear with threats of death. The Right Sector and Svoboda were the muscle.

Did you know that an agreement was signed mid February that the President and the government had agreed to that was negotiated by members of the EU and Russia?

New elections and a country wide referendum on whether or not the Ukraine should go with the EU or Russia. Russia by the way had actually made the better financial offer to the Ukraine.

But the opposition preferred to keep rioting towards a takeover. And now guess who holds really plum positions in the new interim government?

Ta da! The muscle.

 

[kaz]

If we could go back in history and change how we got into some of these situations and how we handled them, then I'd love to be able to do that. However, to sell out countries now that are entirely dependent on us for defense and are now Western Democracies because of us would clearly embolden our enemies and jeopardize our interest.

Europe and the middle east are different, Europe doesn't need our defense and we don't belong in the Middle East and we're just propping up despots hated by their people.

if those countries want us to have bases there to protect them, then they should pay 100% of the cost of the bases.

We thought that there was some national interest in "saving" south viet nam----Duh, not ! The commies won, the country is doing fine and we wasted 58,000 american lives and billions of dollars for NOTHING.

I am sure the South Vietnamese boat people and the Cambodians slaughtered in the killing fields have a slightly different opinion.

I am with you regarding attempts to dominate the world. I think banding with our allies is completely in our interest. So I am in favor of our participation in WWI, WWII. Also countering Communist world domination.

I am in favor of South Korea, but I have reservations over our not being committed to it. Limited war is crap, you don't enter unless you're all in. But at least South Korea is free. My wife is South Korean.

Vietnam I would have supported, but that one the military won several times over and the Politicians screwed them several times over. A family friend was in the Air Force. He flew over factories making weapons to kill Americans, not only did they not attack them, they would have been court martialed if they did. We destroyed the Viet Cong in the Tet offensive, then gave them time to raise new armies. It would have been worth it to win the war, it was not worth killing so many people then finally just getting tired and leaving.

 

[The Rabbi]

American wars are won on the battlefield and lost in the newsroom. Look how close we were to losing in Iraq.
If you were for containing communism then you should be for containing Putinism as well.

 

[Doubletap]

Re: Crimea

Multiple treaties are being trashed by the Russian take over of the
Crimean Peninsula. It opens the door for more Russian encroachment into
Europe and it fires up the imaginations of China and Iran. Our puny
sanctions highlight the weakness of an isolationist America. Per Fox
Business, Russia moved one hundred and five billion dollars out of the
US last week, to PRIVATE BANKS and “third party facilities” whatever
that is. So, last week, the totalitarian thug-ocracy of Russia, knew of
their plan, and America's most likely response.

We should invite American producers with tax breaks to send natural gas to Europe to
counteract its very strong need for Russian resources. Our NATO allies
Latvia and Estonia for instance, get 100% of their natural gas from
Russia. What other sanctions could we impose? I wonder, in the modern
era, if there is an “international union” of allied, free nations any
more? And is this the beginning of a modern “Axis” that would include
Iran, Syria, and Russia’s client states? China would gloat on the
sidelines.

 

[Knowit]

If it hadn't been for the Fed dragging the dollar down, we might not have moved to take down the President of Ukraine, and none of this would be going on. But with the petro dollar about to go under, every country that moves closer to dropping it becomes one more the US must take down to keep them using the US petro dollar.

 

[The Rabbi]

If it hadn't been for the Fed dragging the dollar down, we might not have moved to take down the President of Ukraine, and none of this would be going on. But with the petro dollar about to go under, every country that moves closer to dropping it becomes one more the US must take down to keep them using the US petro dollar.

Three posts and I've got you pegged as a lo-lo.

 

[Knowit]

LOL, a lolo, what happen, you run low on your english knowledge base.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL, a lolo, what happen, you run low on your english knowledge base.

It's a perfect shorthand for posters like you, a dime a dozen here. Low information, low intelligence. A bunch of ill informed numbskulls spouting off crap they think must be true because they heard it from Rachel Maddow and unable to respond appropriately when confronted with actual evidence.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If we made a legal commitment that is not a moral commitment. You understand the difference, right? And isn't living up to commitments both a moral issue and an issue vital to national security?

first, no international treaty is a "legal" committment. There is no body of international law to make such a treaty legal or illegal, or to enforce it. So the only thing it could be is a moral or ethical commitment. We ignore those every day--not saying that is right, just stating facts.

Crimea is not our fight. let the people who live there decide who they want leading them. They voted for Russia, we should STFU and leave them alone. there is no US national security issue involved in crimea rejoining russia

Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.

now they are just doing donuts in the white house front lawn

Crimean P.M. mocks Obama in faked Russian uniform on Twitter - Washington Times

 

[Knowit]

The Russian Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin, basically laughed at the thought of the US and Europe imposing sanctions. Believeing the sanctions will build a stronger industrial base in their country while creating extra hardships on others that rely on Russian so much. So far everythng attempted has caused more trouble than accomplished anything in the nations favor. Guess that's bound to happen when you put Globalist desires over your nations needs.

 

[The T]

LOL, a lolo, what happen, you run low on your english knowledge base.

Whose sock puppet are you?

 

[Knowit]

You need any socks cleaned, I have lots of bleach ! Used properly it will drive Trolls back unders their bridges too.

 

[Redfish]

If we made a legal commitment that is not a moral commitment. You understand the difference, right? And isn't living up to commitments both a moral issue and an issue vital to national security?

first, no international treaty is a "legal" committment. There is no body of international law to make such a treaty legal or illegal, or to enforce it. So the only thing it could be is a moral or ethical commitment. We ignore those every day--not saying that is right, just stating facts.

Crimea is not our fight. let the people who live there decide who they want leading them. They voted for Russia, we should STFU and leave them alone. there is no US national security issue involved in crimea rejoining russia

Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.

My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.

Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.

People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.

The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.

 

[Redfish]

The Russian Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin, basically laughed at the thought of the US and Europe imposing sanctions. Believeing the sanctions will build a stronger industrial base in their country while creating extra hardships on others that rely on Russian so much. So far everythng attempted has caused more trouble than accomplished anything in the nations favor. Guess that's bound to happen when you put Globalist desires over your nations needs.

Instead of trying to stop this, we should be looking for ways to profit from it. But, with the idiots we currently have in DC, whatever we do will be wrong.

 

[Camp]

first, no international treaty is a "legal" committment. There is no body of international law to make such a treaty legal or illegal, or to enforce it. So the only thing it could be is a moral or ethical commitment. We ignore those every day--not saying that is right, just stating facts.

Crimea is not our fight. let the people who live there decide who they want leading them. They voted for Russia, we should STFU and leave them alone. there is no US national security issue involved in crimea rejoining russia

Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.

My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.

Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.

People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.

The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.

Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.

 

[The Rabbi]

first, no international treaty is a "legal" committment. There is no body of international law to make such a treaty legal or illegal, or to enforce it. So the only thing it could be is a moral or ethical commitment. We ignore those every day--not saying that is right, just stating facts.

Crimea is not our fight. let the people who live there decide who they want leading them. They voted for Russia, we should STFU and leave them alone. there is no US national security issue involved in crimea rejoining russia

Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.

My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.

Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.

People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.

The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.

As pointed out, there is both international law and an international court.
Countries comply with treaty obligations because their credibility is at stake. Fail to live up to the terms of a treaty and no one will sign a treat with you anymore and the ones you did sign are suspect.
The people of that region were given a choice: join Russia now or join Russia later. There was no third option. So like the old Soviet votes the result was pretty much a given.
Wait until New Mexico votes to rejoin Mexico.