Featured Poll: Even in GOP, little appetite for military involvement in Ukraine

Having fun with that? Glad I could give you some entertainment. Now that you've had a laugh, perhaps we can return to the subject of the thread? Just a thought ...

Because right now we are seriously

 

No he doesn't Bro. He can just close his eyes plug his ears scream to the top of his lungs and jump up and down till everyone either agrees or gives up and goes away.

Reality isn't allowed in the neocon world, ever.

 

To my knowledge, no Republicans are calling for military intervention in Ukraine. We don't have to. Putin's stranglehold on the region is based mostly on the fact that Russia supplies half of Ukraine's natural gas. And Russia has threatened to raise their prices.


LINKTop-ranking Republicans on Tuesday urged the administration to cut the red tape that has held up the approval process for natural gas exports to key U.S. allies. They argue that by helping Ukraine and European allies end their dependence on Russian energy, the U.S. could ultimately loosen Vladimir Putin's grip on the region.

"We need this action now more than ever before," Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. The sudden attention on energy supplies stems from concern that Russia's robust oil and gas exports give it immense leverage over its neighbors.

It would not cost the US anything to sell natural gas to Ukraine, so it's not a matter of not being able to afford it. It's a matter of loosening restrictions on production.

 

Image: US Senator John McCain in Kiev flanked on his left side by overt Jew-hater and Svoboda party leader, Oleh Tyahnybok. The West's willingness to ally itself with violent bigots, racists and literal Nazis exposes its "values" as nothing more than a selectively upheld facade easily disposed of when inconvenient - and entirely designed to couch its true, corporate-financier driven hegemonic designs behind.

Image: A visual representation of the National Endowment for Democracy's corporate-financier ties found across their Board of Directors. Far from "human rights advocates," they are instead simply leveraging such issues to disguise what is in reality corporate-financier hegemonic expansion.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/

 

“It’s a crime when someone only begins talking about the separation of Russia and the Ukraine,” - Vladimir Putin.

A little ultra-nationalism of the Russian stripe...

 

That has nothing to do with nationalism.

 

What else then? The right to intervene at will?

 

Lewis is right. Economic assistance such as selling oil and gas supplies to Ukraine are valid and effective measures to take against Putin's empire-building -- or in his case, "rebuilding" -- aspirations. That and the few simple and relatively inexpensive military "saber rattling" efforts I've detailed a couple, if not more, times. Despite the consequences to the budget and the debt, the long-term costs of allowing Putin to reconstruct the Soviet Union is well worth the cost and effort those actions would require.

This stance is far from what a few on here would suggest is "imperialism" or "nationalistic fervor" on my part, or even "neocon self-servism." These actions as detailed by myself thus far in this thread are actions that represent the only rational response to an effort to rebuild the totalitarian regime upon which Putin was diapered, fed and brought to maturity. He is one of the old-line communists who refuses to accept the utter failure of the Soviet system, and whose nationalism demands that he rebuild that system despite that failure, as he knows no other way he can make Russia "great" again. He ignores the fact that democracy and free enterprise are the best answers to his scenario. But he doesn't know that system, grew up not trusting that system, so he has chosen the only ways he knows -- the old ones.

In the process, he is planning on enslaving his country and probably a half-dozen others as well in order to overcome the shortcomings of the politics to which he swears allegiance. The United States cannot allow a return to the Cold War, cannot allow Russia, which may or may not have destroyed all those nukes during the disarmament treaties' enforcement, to become the dominant world power under that system. The reason is simple: To succeed, the Soviet system must consume more and more nations and their resources, and as they use up those resources without being able to make themselves self-sustaining due to gross mismanagement and further failure to understand how to overcome those mistakes, they demand more and more domination.

When they dominate the world, or try to, what then?

It cannot be allowed. No matter the cost.

 

Ultimately the problem falls into Europe's lap. A majority in Ukraine wish to be aligned with the EU. But western Europe depends upon Russia for about 30% of their natural gas, so they will let Putin snatch away a couple of Ukrainian provinces. Just as he did in Georgia.
Still, the US has ways to help friends in eastern Europe. Unfortunately for this administration, it would involve more frakking.

 

I might agree with you if any of that were true. But it's not it 's just more corporate media hype just like always. But even if it were true what you're suggesting we do would destroy this country economically.

That's real smart. You'd bankrupt the country just to go abroad chasing another phantom dragon to slay.

All through the 60's and early part of the 70's we heard "if Viet Nam falls the Soviet Union will take over the world". Guess what, it fell and the Soviet Union didn't take over the world.

We've heard this same song and dance so many times now it's getting ridiculous and every time you neocon's sing it you turn out to be flat wrong later on down the road. Don't you gung ho interventions ever get tired of crying wolf wolf wolf only to be proven wrong time and time again? All the lives lost and destroyed all the money and resources we wasted listening to the warmongers and interventionists and for what, so you and your neocon buddies can be proven wrong . . . again. No, enough is enough already.

 

Um, it was Georgia's invasion of south Ossetia at the behest of Washington and NATO that set the Russians off.

 

Europe, as I said early on, isn't equipped to handle a crisis like this. They've cut their military to the barebones, thinking once the Soviet fell, there was no further need for military strength. Now look where they're at.

 

Well then Russia gets away with it and that is the end of it.

 

And yet again, we can't afford to let them "get away with it" even though we can't afford to keep them from "getting away with it."

 

Who knows what that means. By the way when you guys use special fonts it is pain in the back side to quote you. I am about over it.

 

Georgia "invaded" their own provinces who were attempting to breakaway. Interesting. And this was Russia's business in some convoluted way.
Maybe the Mexican army should come to the aid of Arizona, you know, to protect ethnic Mexicans.

 

There goes another irony meter...

 

Yeah I know I'm off the script again aren't I?

 

Russia was supporting what our western media calls "separatist groups" and intervened on their behalf no differently than how Washington through USAID and NED have been supporting what our western media refers to as "protesters" while they tell us we need to consent to another economic/military intervention on their behalf or the "Russians will rule the world" or some other twist on the same theme. We've heard this same old song and dance before about, (to name a few) Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Cuba, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Iran, Sri Lanka, North Korea, and now Ukraine. It's getting old but evidently there are still some folks out there falling hook line and sinker for it even after being suckered several times by Washington and the corporate media.

Why is it different for Washington to use the same divide and conquer tactics in Ukraine that Russia used in Ossetia? Seems kind of hypocritical to condem the one side and support the other when both sides are using the same tactics as a pretext to sell an intervention.

But maybe it's not really the tactics you find reprehensible.

Isn't that exactly what the global corporations are advising the Mexicans to do? Might not be a uniformed army but it's having it's effect, the USA is being "balkanized".

 

At three per day, I hope he's getting a discount. :laugh: