Congratulations people of Crimea

[saxitoxin]

We can count on Obama to check Putin's aggression!

What would Ron Paul do?

[patches70]

We can count on Obama to check Putin's aggression!

What would Ron Paul do?

HAHAH!

I'd prefer if Obama just kept his mouth shut. He talks way to much anyway....

[Phatscotty]

We can count on Obama to check Putin's aggression!

What would Ron Paul do?

That is a good question. I already shared a few clips here n there of him advising to stay out of it, but there are a lot of things the President knows that House members/former House members do not know. I know Ron Paul would be taken far more seriously in requests for diplomacy and he would have a lot more cred for likely ending drone bombings, and he wouldn't have made us seem so soft and clueless in the debates with a nonchalant take on Russia and Putin, and probably would not have promised Putin 'more flexibility after the election'

[saxitoxin]

We can count on Obama to check Putin's aggression!

What would Ron Paul do?

That is a good question. I already shared a few clips here n there of him advising to stay out of it

Wait a second - it sounds like you're opposed to Obama doing nothing against Putin, but support Ron Paul doing nothing against Putin?

[saxitoxin]

Russia has a right to do whatever it needs to guarantee its buffer territories remain prostrate. Russia cannot be expected to watch as Ukraine drifts into NATO. If Canada had drifted into the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, the U.S. would have smashed it. It would have been wiped clean off the map the moment the first whiff of Soviet influence had been smelled. There would be no more Canada.

Even if Russia wasn't acting legally (which it is), it has a customary right to cure Ukraine of bad behavior. The UN system was designed to guarantee great powers wouldn't face the kind of threats that lead to great wars; not to protect the Ukraines and Uruguays of the world. American leaders, like Hil Clinton and Obama and Marco Rubio and Bush and the rest, have been recklessly undermining that system by calling for Ukraine's entry into NATO and stupid, slack-jawed Ukraine has been giggling like she just got fingered at prom. Russia is within its rights to put an immediate end to that nonsense and to fire a shot across the bow of the U.S. as a caution.

[DoomYoshi]

Even if Russia wasn't acting legally (which it is),

Now it is, but the economic sanctions it imposed on Ukraine during 2013 were illegal according to WTO rules.

Also, Russia isn't a 'great power'. There is nothing great about the country (except Snowden).

There is only one great power. It has defense expenditure equal to greater the next top-10.

Can you buy Tac-50s on the streets of Russia? No, you cannot. Ergo, it sucks balls.

[DoomYoshi]

Now that I look it up, you need a license for concealed carry in Ukraine - which is rarely granted.

Without concealed carry, how can they defend themselves? No wonder the navy is cowardly. We should liberate them. I feel morally bound to support all pro-concealed carry wars.

[Phatscotty]

We can count on Obama to check Putin's aggression!

What would Ron Paul do?

That is a good question. I already shared a few clips here n there of him advising to stay out of it

Wait a second - it sounds like you're opposed to Obama doing nothing against Putin, but support Ron Paul doing nothing against Putin?

I said Ron Paul would be far more respected and taken more seriously and hopefully have had some credibility built up. For sure we would not be seen as soft and clueless to the point where rival powers start taking us for chumps. I was being sarcastic about Obama.

[saxitoxin]

We can count on Obama to check Putin's aggression!

What would Ron Paul do?

That is a good question. I already shared a few clips here n there of him advising to stay out of it

Wait a second - it sounds like you're opposed to Obama doing nothing against Putin, but support Ron Paul doing nothing against Putin?

I said Ron Paul would be far more respected and taken more seriously and hopefully have had some credibility built up. For sure we would not be seen as soft and clueless to the point where rival powers start taking us for chumps.

Ron Paul would not "check Putin's aggression" because - unlike McCain, Rubio and Cruz - he does not believe Putin has acted aggressively. Ron Paul supports Vladimir Putin and Russia's legal peacekeeping operations in Ukraine, according to his Facebook page over the last 48 hours.

https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulInstitu ... 2248114541
https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulInstitu ... 6224811810
https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulInstitu ... 0311442068

Obama is insanely calling for war and the GOP is trying to differentiate itself from Obama by acting even more insane and calling for a bloodier war (instead of differentiating itself by calling for peace). This single position is based on the sophistry that Putin has acted aggressively toward the United States. Putin has not acted aggressively toward the United States as Ukraine is not a state. Russia has a splinter and the U.S. needs to shut up and let her remove it, not scream in Russia's face or slap the tweezers out of her hand like Rubio is demanding.

[mrswdk]

Ah, so that's why /b/liebers love Ron Paul so much. He's a Communist

[DoomYoshi]

Ukraine is not a state.

A convenient argument used to take away their second amendment rights.

[GoranZ]

Even if Russia wasn't acting legally (which it is),

Now it is, but the economic sanctions it imposed on Ukraine during 2013 were illegal according to WTO rules.

Also, Russia isn't a 'great power'. There is nothing great about the country (except Snowden).

There is only one great power. It has defense expenditure equal to greater the next top-10.

Can you buy Tac-50s on the streets of Russia? No, you cannot. Ergo, it sucks balls.

Russia is not a great power you say?
It seems you are not well informed... Russia has 8500 NUCLEAR WARHEADS, while US has 7700, even NATO has less nuclear warheads then Russia. And the missile which was tested can hit multiple targets at once.
*source: Status of World Nuclear Forces

Now when you know the real facts you can continue to shit in your pants when you think(read or hear) about Russia

Something else Americans have to worry about... China Announces 12.2% Increase in Military Budget for 2014
I can see several potential targets for China like Taiwan, Diaoyu islands and even South Korea.
So the question is very simple. Can US fight on two fronts at once?

[mrswdk]

Nuclear weapons don't count because no one would ever use them.

[BigBallinStalin]

Nuclear weapons don't count because no one would ever use them.

If governments really believed that, then the US would attack Russia in Ukraine. China would attack Taiwan. South Korea and North Korea would get in a war--because hey, who would ever use nuclear weapons?

And the US, Israel, and many others wouldn't be concerned about any country embarking on a nuclear weapon program (Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc.).

The belief that they could use nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent. If Ukraine wasn't discouraged by the US and Russia from developing nuclear weapons, it wouldn't have been invaded (unless of course the Ukrainian president requests foreign assistance).

[GoranZ]

Nuclear weapons don't count because no one would ever use them.

Actually US used them in WWII so what you said isn't valid

And if US is the most democratic state in the world(according to CNN, BBC, NBC and all other look alike media) already used nuclear bombs without thinking a lot(I think there were few months of hesitation) then I can imagine how long would less democratic regimes would wait before pressing the BIG RED button. *This is the US hammer Russians use against US, it worked and it will work in the future.

[DoomYoshi]

After about 250 megatons, who's keeping track?

nuclear power =/= great power

fists can stop nukes... don't you watch kung fu?

[mrswdk]

the US would attack Russia in Ukraine. China would attack Taiwan. South Korea and North Korea would get in a war

You don't think the threat of a full-scale war with, respectively, Russia, the US and the US would be deterrent enough?

[mrswdk]

And if US is the most democratic state in the world(according to CNN, BBC, NBC and all other look alike media) already used nuclear bombs without thinking a lot(I think there were few months of hesitation) then I can imagine how long would less democratic regimes would wait before pressing the BIG RED button

Leaving aside the fact that the US is not the most democratic country in the world, what does democracy have to do with willingness to use nukes?

[GoranZ]

And if US is the most democratic state in the world(according to CNN, BBC, NBC and all other look alike media) already used nuclear bombs without thinking a lot(I think there were few months of hesitation) then I can imagine how long would less democratic regimes would wait before pressing the BIG RED button

Leaving aside the fact that the US is not the most democratic country in the world, what does democracy have to do with willingness to use nukes?

nothing but US public believes that there is a connection. And this belief is exploited by the Russians and American politicians.

You excluded the interesting part...

And if US is the most democratic state in the world(according to CNN, BBC, NBC and all other look alike media) already used nuclear bombs without thinking a lot(I think there were few months of hesitation) then I can imagine how long would less democratic regimes would wait before pressing the BIG RED button. *This is the US hammer Russians use against US, it worked and it will work in the future.

[BigBallinStalin]

the US would attack Russia in Ukraine. China would attack Taiwan. South Korea and North Korea would get in a war

You don't think the threat of a full-scale war with, respectively, Russia, the US and the US would be deterrent enough?

Without nuclear deterrence, states would be more willing to gamble on the future payoffs of war. See History of the World before nuclear weapons. States will always view rivals as rivals--even if they're trading partners (e.g. US & China), unless they are useful allies (not expendable or informal allies, e.g. Ukraine). The risk of mutually assured destruction or at least unacceptable civilian casualties significantly reduces the payoffs of a direct conflict.

• (I wanted to avoid the costs of writing and revision, so pardon the "US would attack Russia in Ukraine."

Even with nuclear weapons, the US has come close to war. If the threat of full-scare war seems convincing, think about the Joint Chiefs of Staff encouraging Kennedy to bomb Cuba. They knew that would lead to nuclear war, but they wanted to bomb Cuba anyway. It's hard to incentive proper behavior when you're playing with other people's money and lives. Without contracts delineating one's duties (social contract is a myth) and without higher-level enforcement (USG often ignores unenforceable Constitution), then it's extremely difficult to incentivize proper behavior.

[BigBallinStalin]

Nuclear weapons don't count because no one would ever use them.

Actually US used them in WWII so what you said isn't valid

And if US is the most democratic state in the world(according to CNN, BBC, NBC and all other look alike media) already used nuclear bombs without thinking a lot(I think there were few months of hesitation) then I can imagine how long would less democratic regimes would wait before pressing the BIG RED button. *This is the US hammer Russians use against US, it worked and it will work in the future.

A government extract streams of income from the controlled population. If the government, regardless of its type, risks nuclear war, it also risks losing its revenue. This can discourage war--regardless of the government's type. If the political officials have low exit costs (e.g. can live in underground bunkers for 20 years or flee the country with a lot of money), then you can see how that would encourage them to engage in war.

With foreign policy, I see little difference between the individual policymakers of democratic and authoritarian countries. The policymakers of more democratic countries might have to jump through more hoops, but I'm not so sure since the foreign policymaking process is pretty removed from voters. If anything, a war may boost a president's chances of winning the next election--given the right kind of marketing. Bush Senior, Dubya, Clinton, and Obama have done this to 'look tough and just', and it seems to work.

[GoranZ]

Politicians generally do a lot to be reelected or elected(in case with Ukraine). From time to time they might seek weapons of mass destruction on places where they could not be found. Or even hire snipers to shoot at their own supporters and on the police in the same time just to get elected.

[Pope Joan]

Politicians generally do a lot to be reelected or elected(in case with Ukraine). From time to time they might seek weapons of mass destruction on places where they could not be found. Or even hire snipers to shoot at their own supporters and on the police in the same time just to get elected.

LOL. Was it hacked by NSA and leaked by Snowden?

[rishaed]

Hahahaha I just read something (get someone to translate for you), but it basically comes down to EU and US debate sanctions, find that in anycase Germany(german perspective) would be hurt quite a bit from Sanctions, and US doesn't really have anything to sanction Russia with, hahahahaha!
FAZ-Economic Sanctions against Russia

[GoranZ]

Politicians generally do a lot to be reelected or elected(in case with Ukraine). From time to time they might seek weapons of mass destruction on places where they could not be found. Or even hire snipers to shoot at their own supporters and on the police in the same time just to get elected.

LOL. Was it hacked by NSA and leaked by Snowden?

No, no it was hacked by MI6 and leaked by Bond, James Bond

Here you are, the complete one