Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not surprised he would say that. I agree with him. If we weren't willing to get involved in Syria, which is a humanitarian disaster and funded by Putin, why get involved in Ukraine?
I think the people of Crimea should be allowed to vote whether they want to stay a part of Ukraine or become part of Russia. I think this should apply to any people living anywhere -- even the U.S. The American Civil War was a mistake. The North should have let the South secede. It was not worth the loss of 620,000 lives.
Not surprised he would say that. I agree with him. If we weren't willing to get involved in Syria, which is a humanitarian disaster and funded by Putin, why get involved in Ukraine?
I think the people of Crimea should be allowed to vote whether they want to stay a part of Ukraine or become part of Russia. I think this should apply to any people living anywhere -- even the U.S. The American Civil War was a mistake. The North should have let the South secede. It was not worth the loss of 620,000 lives.
The issue about Crimea is geopolitical. Neither Russia nor the West is interested in any sort of self determination. The only vote either side supports is the one that advances its geopolitical interest.
I disagree with your point that this should apply to any people living anywhere. If it does, where does it end? A state, a city, a neighborhood, a district can all vote to restructure, and it would be a big mess. And what exactly is the point is vested interests are involved anyway. Can rich people in Manhattan move to one area and become "independent" so that they don't have to share tax with the rest of the city?
And exactly what would be considered a unit of voting? Can a tip of Crimea vote separately to re-join Ukraine? If not, why Crimea can vote but not a part of it? Who set these boundaries?
If we had taken Ron Paul more seriously in the past, we could have spared ourselves all the casualties, costs, controversy and worse image in the world from the Iraq War. Let's learn from that mistake and actually take him seriously this time. No more shooting ourselves in the foot! Thanks, Ron. Even if you are not as appreciated as you should be by many.
If we had taken Ron Paul more seriously in the past, we could have spared ourselves all the casualties, costs, controversy and worse image in the world from the Iraq War. Let's learn from that mistake and actually take him seriously this time. No more shooting ourselves in the foot! Thanks, Ron. Even if you are not as appreciated as you should be by many.
Well, our Republicans and Democrats don't think that way. They are big-state,big-government interventionists. They are used to lecture people domestically and they do that to Putin; can you believe it! They don't tolerate self-determination and freedom.
The issue about Crimea is geopolitical. Neither Russia nor the West is interested in any sort of self determination. The only vote either side supports is the one that advances its geopolitical interest.
I disagree with your point that this should apply to any people living anywhere. If it does, where does it end? A state, a city, a neighborhood, a district can all vote to restructure, and it would be a big mess. And what exactly is the point is vested interests are involved anyway. Can rich people in Manhattan move to one area and become "independent" so that they don't have to share tax with the rest of the city?
And exactly what would be considered a unit of voting? Can a tip of Crimea vote separately to re-join Ukraine? If not, why Crimea can vote but not a part of it? Who set these boundaries?
Not insurmountable problems. All the people in the area would vote. The location of all votes would be plotted on the map. Where the plots switch from majority pro- to majority anti-, you mark the boundary. Give people who are living on the "wrong" side an opportunity to move to the side they prefer.
Yes, if this were tried elsewhere, there would be an initial surge of people seceding. But in due course, people would see the disadvantages (and advantages) of going alone. Could the rich people in Manhattan afford their own military defense should another 9-11 occur? Something to think about beforehand.
And there could be deterrents put in place. For example, require a 2/3 majority vote instead of a simple 50+% majority. Or require two consecutive votes for separation timed 5-10 years apart to give people time to think it through thoroughly.
If any of you Ron' supporters could read Russian papers, listen Russian opinions, you would reconsider your posts, 100% guarantee. Russia in on the path of holy war with evil forces of the West, USA in particular. BTW, if it was up to EU and USA, Yanukovich would be still in power.
I guess it's OK for Mexico troops (without insignia) to roam Arizona, install puppet governor and set a speedy referendum in 15 days after an invasion while carefully watching voter's rolls and turn out (not speaking of counting the votes). What's going on in Ukraine is totally absurd, it has no any shred of legitimacy or fairness. "Referendum" and circus Ron calls USA to watch and rubber-stamp is referendum on something totally different, the right of a more powerful state to impose its will regardless of pesky international machinery it didn't even try to use. If something is of no use it will die off, good bye UN. It will be referendum on nuclear weapons too, no fool would ever give up its nuclear programs in an exchange for hollow security guarantees. USA would have to bomb non-compliant countries.
I don't see how USA can avoid involvement in this matter? Accepting Putin' spectacle as a legit way to deal with international borders is involvement too, approval to be exact. Unfortunately, it appears that Putin is after a larger chunk of Ukraine, and that would mean a Texas sized country with 5 nuclear power stations in turmoil, a turmoil right next to EU and all those NATO members USA pushed to accept. What Ron doesn't understand, if Putin gets just Crimea, it's a major geopolitical disaster for Russia. He doesn't need Crimea alone.
If any of you Ron' supporters could read Russian papers, listen Russian opinions, you would reconsider your posts, 100% guarantee. Russia in on the path of holy war with evil forces of the West, USA in particular. BTW, if it was up to EU and USA, Yanukovich would be still in power.
I guess it's OK for Mexico troops (without insignia) to roam Arizona, install puppet governor and set a speedy referendum in 15 days after an invasion while carefully watching voter's rolls and turn out (not speaking of counting the votes). What's going on in Ukraine is totally absurd, it has no any shred of legitimacy or fairness. "Referendum" and circus Ron calls USA to watch and rubber-stamp is referendum on something totally different, the right of a more powerful state to impose its will regardless of pesky international machinery it didn't even try to use. If something is of no use it will die off, good bye UN. It will be referendum on nuclear weapons too, no fool would ever give up its nuclear programs in an exchange for hollow security guarantees. USA would have to bomb non-compliant countries.
I don't see how USA can avoid involvement in this matter? Accepting Putin' spectacle as a legit way to deal with international borders is involvement too, approval to be exact. Unfortunately, it appears that Putin is after a larger chunk of Ukraine, and that would mean a Texas sized country with 5 nuclear power stations in turmoil, a turmoil right next to EU and all those NATO members USA pushed to accept. What Ron doesn't understand, if Putin gets just Crimea, it's a major geopolitical disaster for Russia. He doesn't need Crimea alone.
The thing is, if Mexican troops (without insignia) roam Arizona, then you better be sure that you have enough military and economic power to counter them. That's what stops something. Whether it's a referendum or not isn't really meaningful, as a referendum can be easily manipulated to be a show.
If you want to stop something, don't tell people the other side is wrong and you are right. You just have to be able to stop it. Then it will stop. Problem solved. If the U.S.A. isn't as powerful as it is with nuclear capabilities, you think there would be just peace? Americans take for granted their country's military power, but make no mistake, our illusion comes precisely from our power, not our hypocritical "example." No nation has any "example," and nor is the U.N. whose "security council" are just big-powers. When these man-made institutions and artificial rhetoric falls apart, it's down to the raw way.
The thing is, if Mexican troops (without insignia) roam Arizona, then you better be sure that you have enough military and economic power to counter them. That's what stops something. Whether it's a referendum or not isn't really meaningful, as a referendum can be easily manipulated to be a show.
If you want to stop something, don't tell people the other side is wrong and you are right. You just have to be able to stop it. Then it will stop. Problem solved. If the U.S.A. isn't as powerful as it is with nuclear capabilities, you think there would be just peace? Americans take for granted their country's military power, but make no mistake, our illusion comes precisely from our power, not our hypocritical "example." No nation has any "example," and nor is the U.N. whose "security council" are just big-powers. When these man-made institutions and artificial rhetoric falls apart, it's down to the raw way.
There are 230 something countries in this world, most of those are not even close to being as powerful as USA. So they are a fair game for Putin or Mao, or maybe Americans themselves. Back to the jungle or real Politics, empires, alliances and global wars.Even if we to adopt this imbecile Ron' doctrine, there will be a country, there will be a time when USA will be forced to intervene just not to let "bad" guys to become too powerful. If so, why not prevent such a possibility at its root? It's way cheaper this way.
Your suggestion is especially amusing considering that Russia, USA and China have nuclear weapons (including artillery shells, short range missiles). USA and Russia, as far as I remember, declared that they have the "right" to use tactical nuclear weapons first. So you not just have to be able to stop it, you better don't be too rough because a tactical nuke is coming your macho way. That's a wonderful future of global toughness right there.
Artificial rhetoric worked just fine for almost 70 years, what's the rush to trash it?
Last edited by RememberMee; 03-08-2014 at 10:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
