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.
Word just came in today that Ukraine is officially becoming a aligned state with NATO, the path to membership still must be set but we all know that it will be expedited. While the US invasion of Panama for the most part isn't similar to what's happening in East Ukraine, I can't help but to think of the resemblance in regard to the logistics of the situation for example: Russia already had troops in Crimea when it invaded, US had troops in Panama to invade, Russia gained gained that territory with a referendum (although contested by the international community), US deposed a dictator and pretty much installed a new government but with that being said the U.S. doesn't ever seek to gain territory but more so to have governments friendly to us in the same way Russia wants Ukraine friendly to them.
In other words, are we truly being hypocrites by even allowing Ukraine to join NATO knowing the US wouldn't want Mexico joining whatever Russian alliance may exist? With Mexico facing instability, if Moscow were smart it would jump on the opportunity to install a pro-Russia regime. I'm not going to be the guy that says "I don't like Russia but.." because those guys typically do seem to like Russia, my stance is this: The US needs a counter-balance so we can choose for it to be Russia or China, with Russia being overall weak I would prefer Russia to be our counter-balance as opposed to China therefore Russia SHOULD be the country we rival as opposed to trying to hurt them for that only strengthens China. We should refuse Ukraine NATO membership because in the long-term it only hurts our cause with them being aligned with us.
The United States did not have troops in Panama to invade Panama, we had troops in Panama to defend the Panama Canal Zone under agreement with the Panamanian government. In fact, many of the bases were shared with the Panamanian Defense Force.
We already have counterbalances to China, they are called Japan and South Korea. We also have the associated republics of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands to form a buffer zone between China and Hawaii, Guam, and the Marianas.
Russia's power is kaput. Their planned bases in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are figments of Putler's imagination. Their present economic woes have cancelled all that. Once again Russia is revealed as a joke. They can't even take over the Donetsk airport after 9 months of fighting.
The United States did not have troops in Panama to invade Panama, we had troops in Panama to defend the Panama Canal Zone under agreement with the Panamanian government. In fact, many of the bases were shared with the Panamanian Defense Force.
We already have counterbalances to China, they are called Japan and South Korea. We also have the associated republics of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands to form a buffer zone between China and Hawaii, Guam, and the Marianas.
Russia's power is kaput. Their planned bases in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are figments of Putler's imagination. Their present economic woes have cancelled all that. Once again Russia is revealed as a joke. They can't even take over the Donetsk airport after 9 months of fighting.
When I say counter-balance, I don't mean that explicitly regionally but more so internationally -- we have a choice, be a superpower with a rich and powerful China, or we can be a superpower with a kleptocracy and comparatively weak Russia. I'm not sure about you, but I'd prefer Russia to be our "competitor" as opposed to China for China doesn't seem to want to take up the role of superpower if it doesn't have to, while Russia is always open to it. Even when the USSR was around, the US was still superior, China poses a different challenge for they are on a technical basis "richer" than us, therefore they can throw that capital around in a way that we cannot.
In other words, let's face the reality: we set the precedent for foreign invasions of countries with "Just Cause", Russia also had agreements with the Ukraine regarding their bases in Crimea but just as in "Just Cause" those forces decided to be used against the populace or central govt in the Ukraine. I didn't mean to imply that with "Just Cause" we had the troops there to attack Panama, I do understand they were there for peaceful purposes BUT one cannot deny that those very troops went on the offense in Panama yet we say "Russia put troops in Crimea" when in fact they were already there.
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.
