Home The Lodge

The Budapest Memorandum

13

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,564 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Always with the last word with you.

    Not true...
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    What was this all about?? Oh the U.S. invading Ukraine.....are we the guys in the unmarked uniforms? **** we look just like Russians.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,099 Senior Member
    Breaking news: The Estonian foreign minister says there is evidence that the snipers who killed both protestors and police were from the new government coalition. It's about nine minutes into the you tube video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8

    Also reported on Dailykos, among other places.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/05/1282285/--BREAKING-Leak-Estonian-PM-says-Maidan-snipers-were-not-Yanukovich-s#
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Not true...

    Body blow. Body blow.

    [Punch Out!]
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 6,020 Senior Member
    I don't know Ed, 10 minutes ago on Fox would be my guess.

    LMFAO...that is freaking hillarious.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 6,020 Senior Member
    I actually made comparison somewhere to Germany. Which I think would be equally apt. There is no way we would allow civil unrest and ambiguity to exist in such a strategic ally without sending in troops of our own. The Ukraine does already have bases there and Ed has one small valid point in that there are agreements in place regarding those bases. There also according to reporters on the ground a great deal of support from the Crimeans regarding this occupation. I also believe that Crimea is a semi-autonomous state. So it is quite possible that Putin's end game is having a referendum in Crimea which has that region declare it's independence from the Ukraine. That way he can maintain those bases. Which are in his mind of vital strategic importance.

    What I find laughable is the assertion that this is happening because of the weakness of this president. We have a 60 year history of avoiding direct confrontation with Russia, more recently in regards to Chechnya and Georgia. Yet somehow this is because of Benghazi. What is more laughable is the fact there is no way in hell this congress would support this president if he decided to take military action. Not to mention the American people would not stand for it and Putin knows that. So what the hell was the President to do to prevent this?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that while 25k troops can be garisoned there there is no metion of them being allowed to take ant military action outside of their post. I am guessing the agreement doesn't allow them to seize any buildings or prohibit any Ukranian forces from leavng or getting to their bases.

    As for the Obama part of this. I don't think there is anything he could do at this point. He can't get the public opinion to support military action, he can't get congress to support it, he can't get the EU or NATO to do it, and he can no longer say the US will take military action becasue the whole world now knows that drawing a red line doesn't mean ****. Maybe some economic sanctions can be applied, but with China siding with Vlad I think that won't even go anywhere in the fear China may come after us economically.

    Just me 2 cents
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,564 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that while 25k troops can be garisoned there there is no metion of them being allowed to take ant military action outside of their post. I am guessing the agreement doesn't allow them to seize any buildings or prohibit any Ukranian forces from leavng or getting to their bases.

    That would be a pretty good guess.
    As for the Obama part of this. I don't think there is anything he could do at this point. He can't get the public opinion to support military action, he can't get congress to support it, he can't get the EU or NATO to do it, and he can no longer say the US will take military action becasue the whole world now knows that drawing a red line doesn't mean ****. Maybe some economic sanctions can be applied, but with China siding with Vlad I think that won't even go anywhere in the fear China may come after us economically.

    Just me 2 cents

    So we ignore a 60 year history of avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. Ignore the fact that Russia still has a pretty effective nuclear deterrent and they know it and we blame it all on Benghazi.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Somewhere in the land of OZ there's a GOP champion waiting to make the USA great and powerful once again. He's right behind that curtain.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,564 Senior Member
    Someone explain to me why when we invaded Iraq over Putin's objections nobody questioned why he was so weak? Oh I know why because Putin would have shot them. How much like Putin do you think McCain wants President Obama to be?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 6,020 Senior Member
    So we ignore a 60 year history of avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. Ignore the fact that Russia still has a pretty effective nuclear deterrent and they know it and we blame it all on Benghazi.

    Fair point. I doubt we'd have ever trully confronted them becasue of the nuclear deterent and no one really wants to get in WWIII.

    My point about the red line is I believe if we hadn't been pounding our chest against Syria and Iran without backing it up maybe Putin wouldn't have made this move (granted maybe he would have still). My point is simply that we have let the world know in the last few years that all we are going to do is talk tough, but the buck stops there. If we had backed up our words in those cases, or never said them in the first place maybe Vlad would have had second thoughts.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 6,020 Senior Member
    Someone explain to me why when we invaded Iraq over Putin's objections nobody questioned why he was so weak? Oh I know why because Putin would have shot them. How much like Putin do you think McCain wants President Obama to be?

    Maybe I am wrong but didn't we have the backing of the UN? Hadn't we and the international commnity passed a whole bunch of resolutions about weapons inspections etc. that were violated? My point is we didn't just steam rol in there overnight. I don't think it was a real surprise to anyone that it happened.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,099 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    Maybe I am wrong but didn't we have the backing of the UN? Hadn't we and the international commnity passed a whole bunch of resolutions about weapons inspections etc. that were violated? My point is we didn't just steam rol in there overnight. I don't think it was a real surprise to anyone that it happened.

    No, the U.N. did not sanction our invasion of Iraq, in fact, later on Koffi Annan said it was illegal. Bush and company were intent on invading Iraq since ten days after they came into power, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and Richard Clark testified to that many times, they were in the meetings.

    We didn't 'steam roll in there overnight' because the Bushies had to figure out a way to lie the American people into accepting it, which they did.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Some facts about the Russia-Crimea situation.

    http://rt.com/news/russian-troops-crimea-ukraine-816/

    Ukraine’s statement at the UN that ‘16,000 Russian soldiers had been deployed’ across Crimea sparked a MSM feeding frenzy that steadfastly ignored any hard facts that got in their way.

    Especially unwelcome is the fact that the so-called ‘invasion force’ has been there for 15 years already.

    The media many trust described in hysterical tones how the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was under a full-scale Russian invasion with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea”, “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”.

    Facts, and ardent statements by top Russian diplomats were totally ignored by the western ‘war press’.

    So here they are, the facts:

    1) A Russian naval presence in Crimea dates to 1783 when the port city of Sevastopol was founded by Russian Prince Grigory Potemkin. Crimea was part of Russia until Nikita Khruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1954.

    2) In 1997, amid the wreckage of the USSR, Russia & Ukraine signed a Partition Treaty determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea. The deal sparked widespread officer ‘defections’ to Russia and was ratified by the Russian & Ukrainian parliaments in 1999. Russia received 81.7 percent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government US$526.5 million.

    3) The deal allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to stay in Crimea until 2017. This was extended by another 25 years to 2042 with a 5-year extension option in 2010.

    4) Moscow annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequencies, and to compensate for the Black Sea Fleet’s environmental impact.

    5) The Russian navy is allowed up to

    - 25,000 troops,

    - 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm,

    - 132 armored vehicles, and

    - 22 military planes, on Crimean territory.

    Here's what I learned from this thread: There's no problem with the U.S. having troops in something close to 160 countries around the world. After all, we have agreements, treaties and memorandums with all these countries.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    And the Crimean state parliament votes to cede from the Ukraine and join Russia. Who wouldn't?
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 12,276 Senior Member
    Ukranian Seaman.

    There. I said it.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Here's what I learned from this thread: There's no problem with the U.S. having troops in something close to 160 countries around the world. After all, we have agreements, treaties and memorandums with all these countries.

    Its only a problem if you are the hegemon. If your country is seeking to reclaim its former glory (and is not the United States) then game on.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,099 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Its only a problem if you are the hegemon. If your country is seeking to reclaim its former glory (and is not the United States) then game on.


    I agree with Abby that it's wrong for any country to invade another. However, this does not appear to be an invasion but a bolstering of troops already in Crimea to prevent the loss of a warm water port by a coup fomented by the U.S of a country on its doorstep. If Russia did this in Mexico the U.S. response would be the same.

    The U.S. media's hysterical coverage of this situation without reporting the facts, which you seem to have swallowed without question, is wrong also and needed to be revealed. Now it seems that the snipers were hired by the new Ukraine government, something else that has not been reported in the MSM.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    I agree with Abby that it's wrong for any country to invade another. However, this does not appear to be an invasion but a bolstering of troops already in Crimea to prevent the loss of a warm water port by a coup fomented by the U.S of a country on its doorstep. If Russia did this in Mexico the U.S. response would be the same.

    You missed the point.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,099 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    You missed the point.

    Your point is your spin of this thread. It's not ok for the U.S. to have troops in 160 countries to maintain the U.S. economic empire and it's not ok for Russia to do the same. Russia is trying to get back its buffer of countries to counter the U.S. and NATO expansion of influence in the region but it doesn't compare to the world wide economic hegemony of the U.S.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,210 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Your point is your spin of this thread. It's not ok for the U.S. to have troops in 160 countries to maintain the U.S. economic empire and it's not ok for Russia to do the same. Russia is trying to get back its buffer of countries to counter the U.S. and NATO expansion of influence in the region but it doesn't compare to the world wide economic hegemony of the U.S.

    This kinda makes sense, in a paranoid Russian sort of way..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Your point is your spin of this thread. It's not ok for the U.S. to have troops in 160 countries to maintain the U.S. economic empire and it's not ok for Russia to do the same. Russia is trying to get back its buffer of countries to counter the U.S. and NATO expansion of influence in the region but it doesn't compare to the world wide economic hegemony of the U.S.

    And boom, there it is.
    G-d knows, the U.S. and Western Europe are just spoiling to attack Mother Russia.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 11,676 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    And boom, there it is.
    G-d knows, the U.S. and Western Europe are just spoiling to attack Mother Russia.

    Yes!!!!

    All their caviar and Olympic-grade shotguns are mine!
    The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,099 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    And boom, there it is.
    G-d knows, the U.S. and Western Europe are just spoiling to attack Mother Russia.

    Yes, economically but not militarily. Russia has too many nukes and ICBMs for us to attack militarily.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    Just so I'm clear here, if a former Soviet Republic decides to join the EU, then Putin has a right to stop it? And are you suggesting that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were forced to join the EU?

    And what does NATO have to do with economics?

    If Putin really wants to compete economically, and not just line his pockets (what's he worth? $6 billion?). He knows what to do.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,564 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    Maybe I am wrong but didn't we have the backing of the UN?

    No.

    And the rest does not matter.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,564 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    Fair point. I doubt we'd have ever trully confronted them becasue of the nuclear deterent and no one really wants to get in WWIII.

    My point about the red line is I believe if we hadn't been pounding our chest against Syria and Iran without backing it up

    We expanded the sanctions against Iran farther than any previous admin and they have come to the table. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran is stupid.

    Also Syria came to the table. Things are not going swiftly but nobody in Syria has been gassed since. Again, the same people whining about a lack of strength also made it clear Obama would not have the support of the congress if he decided to take military action. Don't forget those same people were calling him a dictator for taking action in Libya.

    This red line thing is full of crap, made up by that sore loser McCain.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,210 Senior Member
    This crisis is already over. The EU is not going to do anything besides a bit of posturing and the US doesn't have a lot of options either. A referendum vote will put the Crimea back in the Russian Federation or an autonomous state with strong ties to Russia. Hell, maybe this is the way it should be, Life will go on..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,564 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    If we had backed up our words in those cases, or never said them in the first place maybe Vlad would have had second thoughts.

    That is a big nope. Crimea is way to important to him strategically. It is the home of the Black Sea Fleet.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,564 Senior Member
    I think it is funny that Ed is clinging to RT even though it is controlled by the Russian government and even its own anchors are calling them liars and quitting.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,099 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Just so I'm clear here, if a former Soviet Republic decides to join the EU, then Putin has a right to stop it? And are you suggesting that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were forced to join the EU?

    And what does NATO have to do with economics?

    If Putin really wants to compete economically, and not just line his pockets (what's he worth? $6 billion?). He knows what to do.


    No, Putin doesn't have the right to stop that. It looks like Crimea will vote in ten days to join Russia, does Obama have the right to stop that?

    NATO is part of economic 'the new world order' the U.S. has been trying to impose on the entire world since the end of WWII.

    I don't know how many billions Putin has. I'm sure he is trying to line his pockets just like the western elite is trying to do, that's part of the stupid money system game that has the world so screwed up.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement