Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Russia now has 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. Will they invade and take the part they want?

Russia now has 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. Will they invade and take the part they want?

+3
knothead
ZVUGKTUBM
Markle
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Markle

Markle

Russia now has 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. Will they invade and take the part they want?

Russia provides over 34% of the gas and oil used by Europe. The pipe lines run through...Ukraine.

Guest


Guest

yes he will, because Obama is secretly working with him.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

And what are we supposed to do here? The Ukraine was once ruled by Russia and was a part of the former Soviet Union until 1992.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. [1]

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996.

Guest


Guest

Something else to remember about the recent history of eastern europe is the obama "reset" with russia in 2009. I'm sure seagoat considers it another glorious foreign relations success and an example of obama's profound wisdom concerning all things of global and military significance... but there are many little sovereign border nations over there that don't. He dismantled the missile defense programs that were promised... and withdrew over half of the european military assets. But that wasn't apparently enough... as we overheard when obama whispered/plead to the russian president prior to his reelection campaign for "latitude" in exchange for future considerations... which we apparently now know. Yes... resounding success... amazing insight... brilliant negotiating tactics.

I'm voting for him next time.

knothead

knothead

Obama opponents seize on this Crimean land grab and the GOP leadership has stood on the Senate floor and decried him to be a 'feckless' leader, leading from behind, etc., etc., which I guess is fine although I believe when our Prez is out of the country and is being heckled essentially by his own people it paints a poor picture of our nation . . . save it til he comes home and the setting is more appropriate. This is clearly not a WW III scenario and Obama understands that our part in resolving this conflict is to do exactly what he is doing . . . garner and build support from the Europeans and they must buy into the concept that they must step up and show unanimity. Other free nations must begin to bear the burden of their own defense and America will assist but without their full participation Europe will remain unstable. Obama has grown accustomed to the criticism of his domestic political enemies as they are the same group who coalesced to bring him down when he was first elected and those barbs hardly ruffle his feathers this far down the road.

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:And what are we supposed to do here? The Ukraine was once ruled by Russia and was a part of the former Soviet Union until 1992.

The Ukraine is a sovereign nation being attacked by someone who has ambitions of reforming the old Soviet Union.

Should renege on helping that country the same as we did the anti-missile agreement we had with Poland when President Barack Hussein Obama pulled the plug.



Last edited by Markle on 7/25/2014, 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

Markle

Markle

knothead wrote:Obama opponents seize on this Crimean land grab and the GOP leadership has stood on the Senate floor and decried him to be a 'feckless' leader, leading from behind, etc., etc., which I guess is fine although I believe when our Prez is out of the country and is being heckled essentially by his own people it paints a poor picture of our nation . . . save it til he comes home and the setting is more appropriate.  This is clearly not a WW III scenario and Obama understands that our part in resolving this conflict is to do exactly what he is doing . . . garner and build support from the Europeans and they must buy into the concept that they must step up and show unanimity.  Other free nations must begin to bear the burden of their own defense and America will assist but without their full participation Europe will remain unstable.  Obama has grown accustomed to the criticism of his domestic political enemies as they are the same group who coalesced to bring him down when he was first elected and those barbs hardly ruffle his feathers this far down the road.  

Sorry but it is President Barack Hussein Obama who has cast our country as a paper tiger, weak and feckless. What should we expect from someone whose most complex negotiations was with an ACORN committee?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
knothead wrote:Obama opponents seize on this Crimean land grab and the GOP leadership has stood on the Senate floor and decried him to be a 'feckless' leader, leading from behind, etc., etc., which I guess is fine although I believe when our Prez is out of the country and is being heckled essentially by his own people it paints a poor picture of our nation . . . save it til he comes home and the setting is more appropriate.  This is clearly not a WW III scenario and Obama understands that our part in resolving this conflict is to do exactly what he is doing . . . garner and build support from the Europeans and they must buy into the concept that they must step up and show unanimity.  Other free nations must begin to bear the burden of their own defense and America will assist but without their full participation Europe will remain unstable.  Obama has grown accustomed to the criticism of his domestic political enemies as they are the same group who coalesced to bring him down when he was first elected and those barbs hardly ruffle his feathers this far down the road.  

Sorry but it is President Barack Hussein Obama who has cast our country as a paper tiger, weak and feckless.  What should we expect from someone whose most complex negotiations was with an ACORN committee?

You got it Herr Markle! Amerika Inc is weak and feckless. We're broke because the big banks and the greedy bastards of Wall Street have ripped us off and continue to do so, while your favorite corporate predators have managed to buy our congress. The middle class is diminishing, wages are the lowest they've been in two decades, and 1% own more than 50% of all our money. Add to that unnecessary, un-winnable and wasteful wars in the Mid East, Afghanistan and now Africa that have exhausted our military forces, military budgets we can no longer afford, and we arrive exactly where you claim we are: Feckless and Weak. Congratulations on calling it right for once.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

What's driving Obama's failures in foreign relations is his ridiculous desire to shift to the right to somehow please his political opponents, while, at the same time, recognizing we don't have the money, the troops or the inclination as a people to pursue meaningless, wasteful wars that cannot be won.

Obama's desire to mollify neocon imperialism directly conflicts his inclinations to achieve diplomatic goals.

The result is we are neither peacemakers nor war winners anymore.

Ask the average parents of military-aged kids if they are willing to sacrifice them to save the Ukraine from Russia, and the loudness of their "NO!" might make you deaf.

Rand Paul has this one right. We don't need to be policeman of the world!!

Screw Amerika Inc!!

Guest


Guest

Lol... the foreign relation/policy events of the last five years are the fault of the right now. Sickening apologists.

I listed the key events above... it's amazing y'all are able to ignore current events to assign a false narrative.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Obama's desire to mollify neocon imperialism directly conflicts his inclinations to achieve diplomatic goals.

The result is we are neither peacemakers nor war winners anymore.

The neocons need to be excommunicated from the halls of government. They should have no voice at all, because their day came and went from 2001-2009.

The "missile shield" in Europe was supposedly to defend them from a false-Iranian missile threat. It was really aimed at Russia, and had it been built, would have really ratcheted-up tensions between Russua and the U.S. to levels not seen since the Cold War. Us building that would be akin to Russia erecting an ABM system in Canada--how would we cotton to that? Another neocon ploy to start wars--their fascist agenda is a bad one!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Obama's desire to mollify neocon imperialism directly conflicts his inclinations to achieve diplomatic goals.

The result is we are neither peacemakers nor war winners anymore.

The neocons need to be excommunicated from the halls of government. They should have no voice at all, because their day came and went from 2001-2009.

The "missile shield" in Europe was supposedly to defend them from a false-Iranian missile threat. It was really aimed at Russia, and had it been built, would have really ratcheted-up tensions between Russua and the U.S. to levels not seen since the Cold War. Us building that would be akin to Russia erecting an ABM system in Canada--how would we cotton to that? Another neocon ploy to start wars--their fascist agenda is a bad one!

Now Russia has proven that they are a substantial risk to their neighboring countries in spite the state of their economy. They are now militarily invading a neighboring country which, Conservatives SAID would happen given the vacuum in leadership from now semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama.

The missile defense system, promised by semi-retired President Obama, should have been built and should be built today.

Guest


Guest

Just like the Cuban Missile Crisis, this is in Russia's back yard. We won't do anything.

Guest


Guest

Just as they
Backed down in 1962

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Just as they
Backed down in 1962

How can a supposed soldier be so wrong so many times?

Who backed down in 1962? Kennedy buckled to Kruschev's deal: We remove our missiles from Turkey, and promise not to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro, and they'll remove their intermediate ballistic missile installations in Cuba.

Again, so who backed down? Let's face it soldier boy, since WWII we haven't won a single war. Not one. You can argue that it's because of the poor quality of our generals, or our politicians, or both. Either way, we still end up as losers!!

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:

How can a supposed soldier be so wrong so many times?

Who backed down in 1962?  Kennedy buckled to Kruschev's deal:  We remove our missiles from Turkey, and promise not to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro, and they'll remove their intermediate ballistic missile installations in Cuba.

Again, so who backed down?  Let's face it soldier boy, since WWII we haven't won a single war.  Not one. You can argue that it's because of the poor quality of our generals, or our politicians, or both.  Either way, we still end up as losers!!

Russia now has 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. Will they invade and take the part they want? Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCbXDwV0slGez4bE24eNFfj_29BtmivEkw1EFltsb0HxKemV0kaQ

I see. So now you want the United States to be even more aggressive.

Why didn't you say so?

So does that mean we can just kill them all and let God sort it out later?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbvTiMMlkNg

 Smile

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Just as they
Backed down in 1962

How can a supposed soldier be so wrong so many times?

Who backed down in 1962?  Kennedy buckled to Kruschev's deal:  We remove our missiles from Turkey, and promise not to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro, and they'll remove their intermediate ballistic missile installations in Cuba.

Again, so who backed down?  Let's face it soldier boy, since WWII we haven't won a single war.  Not one. You can argue that it's because of the poor quality of our generals, or our politicians, or both.  Either way, we still end up as losers!!

We lost each, except for Iraq, because of the wars being run by politicians.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

We lost each, except for Iraq.....

Yes, Iraq was a real success story.........  Rolling Eyes

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Just as they
Backed down in 1962

You were not alive in 1962..... You had better thank the stars that people backed down then. The world was a hair-trigger away from thermonuclear mayhem.

Curtis LeMay put 7,000 megatons in the air during the crisis and sent the bombers north to their failsafe points to goad the Russians into responding. This occurred during a time when the SAC chief had more control over nuclear weapons than the military would later.

Of course, had we not first put nuclear-tipped IRBMs in Turkey (Jupiter missiles) and England (Thor missiles), the Russians would not have tried to emplace their IRBMs in Cuba. This all happened at a time before the ICBM would reign as the nuclear delivery system of choice.

The Russians blinked first and removed their weapons from Cuba, while getting confidential assurances from JFK that the U.S. would quietly remove the Jupiter IRBMs from Turkey. A lower level Russian diplomat then told an American counterpart: "...You will not do this to us again...." Kruschev was sacked and replaced by hardliners, and within 15 years, the U.S. faced over 1,600 Russian ICBMs; many of which were designed as counterforce weapons.

JFK was a hero. He and Kruschev had to work together to overcome hawks within their spheres who wanted the nuclear mayhem to occur. We all lived because of JFK's serious diplomacy during that period.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Just as they
Backed down in 1962

You were not alive in 1962..... You had better thank the stars that people backed down then. The world was a hair-trigger away from thermonuclear mayhem.

Curtis LeMay put 7,000 megatons in the air during the crisis and sent the bombers north to their failsafe points to goad the Russians into responding. This occurred during a time when the SAC chief had more control over nuclear weapons than the military would later.

Of course, had we not first put nuclear-tipped IRBMs in Turkey (Jupiter missiles) and England (Thor missiles), the Russians would not have tried to emplace their IRBMs in Cuba. This all happened at a time before the ICBM would reign as the nuclear delivery system of choice.

The Russians blinked first and removed their weapons from Cuba, while getting confidential assurances from JFK that the U.S. would quietly remove the Jupiter IRBMs from Turkey. A lower level Russian diplomat then told an American counterpart: "...You will not do this to us again...." Kruschev was sacked and replaced by hardliners, and within 15 years, the U.S. faced over 1,600 Russian ICBMs; many of which were designed as counterforce weapons.

JFK was a hero. He and Kruschev had to work together to overcome hawks within their spheres who wanted the nuclear mayhem to occur. We all lived because of JFK's serious diplomacy during that period.


Well stated!!

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:We lost each, except for Iraq....

Yes, Iraq was a real success story....Rolling Eyes

As you well know, have such a short memory about, we won the Iraq war. First Semi-Retired President Barack Hussein Obama claimed victory in Iraq but, somehow, he has managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.


Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Is45Jwqizc

Re-writing history is a specialty of yours is it not?

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Re-writing history is a specialty of yours is it not?

Russia now has 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. Will they invade and take the part they want? Laughi39

It is amusing, my furry-friend, when a person like poster Markle accuses others of "re-writing history." I can find hundreds of posts on this forum where he has done exactly that, outrageously, and not with very good effect......  Rolling Eyes

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Obama's desire to mollify neocon imperialism directly conflicts his inclinations to achieve diplomatic goals.

The result is we are neither peacemakers nor war winners anymore.

The neocons need to be excommunicated from the halls of government. They should have no voice at all, because their day came and went from 2001-2009.

The "missile shield" in Europe was supposedly to defend them from a false-Iranian missile threat. It was really aimed at Russia, and had it been built, would have really ratcheted-up tensions between Russua and the U.S. to levels not seen since the Cold War. Us building that would be akin to Russia erecting an ABM system in Canada--how would we cotton to that? Another neocon ploy to start wars--their fascist agenda is a bad one!

Now Russia has proven that they are a substantial risk to their neighboring countries in spite the state of their economy.  They are now militarily invading a neighboring country which, Conservatives SAID would happen given the vacuum in leadership from now semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama.

The missile defense system, promised by semi-retired President Obama, should have been built and should be built today.

Hmm. Didn't conservatives also say our troops would be welcomed to Iraq after we overthrew Saddam? And it was conservatives in power when 9-11 occurred, as I recall. Conservatives also said Obama care wouldn't work, but it seems to be working in several states where they didn't attempt to sabotage it. Conservatives also said that 47% of America doesn't want to work or be responsible for their families. Conservatives also said that we Won THE WAR in Iraq. By "winning" they mean we controlled the place and wouldn't allow the traditional religious and tribal hatreds to erupt in violence. Conservatives like our resident Nazi also advocate that we should occupy Iraq forever, regardless of the cost in blood or money.

If you love your government being owned and run by big corporations, elect conservatives. They're of the rich, for the rich by the rich. Reality.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:

If you love your government being owned and run by big corporations, elect conservatives.  They're of the rich, for the rich by the rich.  Reality.


Russia now has 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. Will they invade and take the part they want? Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUUeSrbRTUdoyld9nFygqDATttAYJLc8xIifv5d4YaU5YGb_wHYA

https://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/

Richest Members of Congress, 2012


Name

Estimated Wealth


Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $464,115,018
Mark Warner (D-Va) $257,481,658
Jared Polis (D-Colo) $197,945,705
John K. Delaney (D-Md) $154,601,580
Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $143,153,910
Scott Peters (D-Calif) $112,467,040
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) $103,803,192
Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $101,290,514
Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $88,802,066
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $87,997,030

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy04c-6DEgE

 Smile

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Russia now has 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. Will they invade and take the part they want?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum