[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Oops. I quoted the wrong post. That was directed towards the intervention crowd, not you.
[/quote]
Who is the intervention crowd here? Name them.[/quote]
Pat, USMC, probably a few others. I’m not lumping you into that category, though I do know ou find the actions of the Russian Federation morally repugnant. [/quote]
I’m not sure if “morally repugnant” is the correct term. “Suspicious” would work better.
And I’m not all that sure Pat and USMC are advocating military intervention.
[/quote]
This is exactly why I have Bismark on ignore. No where did I say I am for military intervention, NO WHERE.
Ridiculous.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What is a “dirty nuke”, exactly? The war in Iraq only gave Iran an even greater incentive to become a nuclear weapon state. Iran also has much more influence in Iraq since the US invasion. Not exactly a prudent war especially considering it very likely lost the war in Afghanistan.[/quote]
A dirty nuke is essentially a radioactive dispersion device. Their main purpose is to spread radiation about a certain area. They are really only useful as an area denial measure, but if the dispersion mechanism is combined with conventional explosives you get the added benefits of equipment/building damage and immediate human casualties, as well as area denial. [/quote]
Good information.
Ironically now weapons of mass destruction can even include pressure cookers. So by this measure Iraq was loaded with them and actually so was my grandma.
[/quote]
An improvised explosive device facilitated with a pressure cooker is still a conventional weapon.[/quote]
Not according to the United States government. It is now a weapon of mass destruction or at least has been labeled as such in the charges against the Boston bombers.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Would my college roommate’s best friend still have two legs? [/quote]
Perhaps, but I don’t know what good they would do him while he was being forced to learn Arabic, worship Allah, wear turbans, etc. [/quote]
Lol. I know you are kidding, but you’d be surprised the amount of people who probably bought hook line and sinker that Iraq and MOO-SLIMS were planning to attack America and if we don’t get in there right now and mix it up we will be forced to worship Allah in no time.
It’s amazing what some people will try to get some people to believe in order to sell military action. It’s big business. And make no mistake about it some people made a whole hell of a lot of money from our last two wars.
And while the profiteers and war hawks always tell us what WILL happen if we don’t invade we never consider what will happen if we don’t. And then we get surprised at the creative ways people will go about defending their home from what they see as foreign invaders. “See what they used on us?” Yeah, I do and it’s horrific. I just don’t know why some people (and ironically the left and right both have them in spades) think you can’t support your troops by wanting them out of harms way as much as possible.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol. I know you are kidding, but you’d be surprised the amount of people who probably bought hook line and sinker that Iraq and MOO-SLIMS were planning to attack America and if we don’t get in there right now and mix it up we will be forced to worship Allah in no time.
It’s amazing what some people will try to get some people to believe in order to sell military action. It’s big business. And make no mistake about it some people made a whole hell of a lot of money from our last two wars.
And while the profiteers and war hawks always tell us what WILL happen if we don’t invade we never consider what will happen if we don’t. And then we get surprised at the creative ways people will go about defending their home from what they see as foreign invaders. “See what they used on us?” Yeah, I do and it’s horrific. I just don’t know why some people (and ironically the left and right both have them in spades) think you can’t support your troops by wanting them out of harms way as much as possible. [/quote]
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
We do know the effect of going in before we knew whether or not they had WMD’s. They did not ultimately and our justification for that action was completely lost at that point. We had an opportunity to wait for confirmation before acting and we ignored it.
[/quote]
Here’s the thing, and I know it’s going to sound full retard, but it’s the truth.
Iraq had chemical weapons and I know people that they were used on. You will never hear about it in the news or official acknowledgement by our gov. but people were and are currently being treated for “Gulf War Syndrome” which just so happens to match very closely with the symptoms of having been hit with nerve gas.
[/quote]
That’s a stretch and more likely the result of the use of depleted uranium weapons. So what if Iraq did use VX or sarin nerve agent? People are irrationally afraid of chemical weapons because of how they kill their victims. They get lumped into the WMD category not because of their capability, but by virtue of being unconventional. WMD itself is a political construct that has no place in positivist analysis. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear weapons (CBRNs) is the metric that should be standard terminology.[/quote]
No stretch at all. When a missile strike sets off the chemical weapons sensors and everybody starts experiencing the effects of exposure to nerve gas, it’s not a stretch.
It’s a chemical weapons attack.
So the response so far is “Thats what you get for invading” from H factor and “Thats a stretch” from Bismark.
Classy. Very Classy.
The current government was democratically elected. If the minority is successful in overthrowing them, it is on it’s face undemocratic. Curious if the U.S. is behind the minority uprising?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
No stretch at all. When a missile strike sets off the chemical weapons sensors and everybody starts experiencing the effects of exposure to nerve gas, it’s not a stretch.
It’s a chemical weapons attack.
So the response so far is “Thats what you get for invading” from H factor and “Thats a stretch” from Bismark.
Classy. Very Classy.
[/quote]
Hold still I wasn’t suggesting in the least bit that it was not awful what happened nor do I have any idea where one could get that in my post. You’re not the only person who knows someone (I know multiple people) who have seen the first hand horrors of war from loved ones. It’s always awful and always terrible and to suggest that anywhere I was saying they had it coming represents a complete lack of reading comprehension from my post in response to you.
It’s HIGHLY unfortunate the horrific things that took place emotionally, physically, psychologically, etc. Human lives were ruined. Human lives were destroyed. Families lives were destroyed. People in the United States and people in foreign countries. These are the KNOWN quantities of damage when we go to war. When we invade another country. When we decide to put our human beings and the human beings of other countries at risk for these things.
Sometimes it is worth those risks and the sacrifices made. World War II is an obvious example to me. All I was saying is it is HIGHLY risky to take a stance of what the United States MUST do (lest ya know we appear weak or something) in regards to other countries when we KNOW the costs of war.
All I’m saying is our foreign policy need not be so cavalier with making the decisions to expose people from our country and other countries to those risks. We cannot attempt to act surprised at what people will do to protect themselves from foreigners and we cannot attempt to act as if every country we step foot in will treat us as liberators and freedom bringers. It is beyond arrogant to assume that other countries must accept the good we say we are bringing to them. Of course it is easy for us when so few countries set their soldiers boots on our ground. It is highly risky when our Patriotism reaches levels where we think the entire World must do as we want or the problem lies with THEM.
The only thing lacking class is when our Presidents and Congressmen lack the absolute balls to turn down a fight simply because of political pressure or the desires of crony capitalists prepared to profit. I think we are lying to ourselves if we think our leaders have always had those balls. The costs of war are numerous and nothing is more costly than the human lives and family lives sacrificed for ourselves and those of our fellow humans abroad. Is it really wrong to wish for leaders who view military action as a last resort instead of a first one?
FWIW Sky not only do I come from a military family probably the ONLY reason I didn’t join the Marines was because 9/11 happened my senior year of high school. I was prepared to join and my mother had a cow after 9/11 and would not let me sign up for the service anymore. It really wasn’t her fault she liked the idea a lot more before the uncertainty of military life after that attack as she had lost her only brother to war. It went from something I was about 95% sure I was going to do going into my senior year to something she wouldn’t even consider.
My background and what I have seen happened to other loves ones is part of the reason I feel the way I do.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
There’s a reason I said I was suspicious.
You are being duped if you think Putin is merely a “good” guy but tough. Tough? Maybe. Good? Nah. Not a chance.
Just has the Russians’ in Ukraine best interests at heart? Not a chance.
So many of you commenting on this thread and elsewhere really are too young to remember. And that includes our resident dual citizen.[/quote]
Color me completely unsurprised. In fact this sort of thing (intelligence agency dictatorship) is something I’ve suspected for a long time given his KGB roots.
I don’t even care, and I’ve never considered him “good”. Only incredibly, incredibly shrewd and savvy. A VERY sharp political leader.
The fact of the matter is, I’ve suspected something like this happening in the Ukraine–and remember this is still unconfirmed speculation even if it does make sense–and it doesn’t changemy position at all. He’s got a strong hand, local interests, a treaty allowing him to do what he is doing, and he’s spent a career playing the long game. Hell he’s even been on record as saying the fall of the USSR was the greatest geopolitic catastrophe of our time.
It doesn’t matter. Fact is, we have absolutely zero practical interests in Ukraine and he holds a strong political hand. We don’t have a reason to intervene, and we shouldn’t. My opinion on the matter isn’t based on him being a morally good guy. He’s not, never has been. It’s strictly practical and its a smarter play in this poker game, unless something goes terribly wrong and he makes a gross mistake.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
It doesn’t matter. Fact is, we have absolutely zero practical interests in Ukraine and he holds a strong political hand. We don’t have a reason to intervene, and we shouldn’t. My opinion on the matter isn’t based on him being a morally good guy. He’s not, never has been. It’s strictly practical and its a smarter play in this poker game, unless something goes terribly wrong and he makes a gross mistake.[/quote]
We have interests all over the world because that is the expectation we have setup for our military and our role.
Putin is not a morally good guy, but I’m not sure I would say Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden are either. In typical USA number one fashion most American pundits will argue about whether Russia is going to far with this because we have determined we are able to make those decisions yet get pissed at countries for not supporting us when we do similar things.
Typical do as we say not as we do.
I agree on the smart play, but we don’t always do the smart thing. A big coalition in America is always pushing for the next conflict always making the case of what we need to do and why. I honestly think a lot of that comes from the mentality of we have built up this giant military force in spending and it seems like some people think we need to be using it as often as possible.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If Mexico came out today and said, “Russia if you invade the Ukraine we will defend the Ukraine at all cost”. How long do you think Russia would laugh?
Now substitute America for Mexico. Does Russia laugh or do they take a step back and think about the consequences of their actions?
What is the difference?
Being strong is well a strong deterrent, but you have to look the part. It’s hard to bluff if you look weak.
[/quote]
I see your larger point, but foreign policy is not often something you should bother bluffing with when stakes are high. Most certainly not in this case.[/quote]
Ukraine isn’t under the protection of US extended deterrence. Through the lens of self interest and realpolitik, why should it be? [/quote]
No, I agree with you. We have no real interests there from a purely practical standpoint, just making a more general point.[/quote]
Well, that is not entirely true. The US has spent over $5 billion in Ukraine in the last 20+ years and does a very small amount of trade with Ukraine, but none of that really warrants the amount of attention the US is giving this. Also, with a new virulently pro-Western government in play that will only help increase trade with the US, so there are some American interests in play, although nowhere near as much, or as tangible of interests as Russia has there.
That being said, the US’s hands are by no means clean in this matter. Here is a transcript of a phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt (US Ambassador to Ukraine) where they discuss how they are going to influence who becomes a member of the new government (interfering in the makeup of a foreign government that the US has recognized like this is a violation of international law). They also discuss ways to not have Ukraine join the EU. The US does not want Ukraine to join the EU for the same reasons Russia doesn’t. Namely, if Ukraine joins the EU they will receive preferential trade agreements with the EU to the detriment of trade with the US, but if they do not then the US can try to negotiate better trade agreements with the new government and come out on top.
