Posted on 07/29/2014 12:39:31 PM PDT by elhombrelibre
Edited on 07/29/2014 12:53:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yeah right. Even when Putin screws up and fails, it’s a win/win for him ...at least in your mind.
he is not screwing up
it is by design, intentional.
Yes, and he can jump tall buildings at a single bound.
Good Lord, Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuke arsenal in the world and disarmed...
If you are not even aware of the repeated security assurances, then you need to spend about, oh, say, 50 hours of research (with no biases in place beforehand) on Ukraine. Then come back and make an informed comment.
Ukraine certainly did get a raw deal, and there is little question now about their willingness to fight and fight hard. I’d take them over a lot of other current NATO members.
Bill Clinton made them an offer they couldn't refuse.
I’ve been made aware of them, recently althou im not sure if I feel they were made in good Faith. I am not now nor have I ever been a proponent of nuclear disarmament. The Genies is out of the bottle, we need to learn to deal with that. To that end I’m not yet sure if I’m incline to back up such assurances.
The only thing i’m certain of is that they were in fact just ‘promises’ made by an otherwise faithless Washington, so i really don’t think their worth the paper their written on anyway. Only a treaty ratified by Congress is binding.
I will grant you that had the Ukrainians had any sense, they’d have told that would-be shady used car dealer to take a hike.
(Seriously, the 1st time I saw Bill Clinton speak on TV, my reaction was “Where’d they come up with the shady used car dealer?”)
(If any reader happens to be an honest used car dealer, and I’ve purchased from some, this “shoe” is not meant for you!))
If other countries come to view such promises as worthless, and the US a weak, worthless ally, which is indeed happening, then there WILL be at least a medium scale nuclear war in the not too distant future. I give it 10 - 50 years, and better than even odds that the US will not be directly attacked. But... the radiation will kill millions of US citizens and the world economy will collapse. The movements toward that war are already underway (but not unstoppable with strong leadership by the US.)
You hear people say the US should not be the world’s “cop”. They never discuss or understand where that leads.
I will not deny that there has been a rather drastic shift away from global peace and stability and towards anarchy, war, and atrocities in the last 6 years of the Obama policy.
I also do not deny the essences of the Obama policy being mostly what I described as being the primary cause.
I would still however insist upon the former treaty process, not the mere word of Presidents and the prepetulay corrupt State department’s words/’assurances’. It is not wise to invest such power and reliability in such corruptible offices.
So you see it is not that we shouldn’t encourage stability and defend allies, its that we MUST do it thou the constitutional process if it is to be respected as binding. Otherwise people like Obama will be using that same word to push his social agenda around the world.
I would however point out that Russia would not have taken Crimea if the Ukraine had such an alliance with anther nuclear power. The Ukraine should have insisted upon a treaty which presumably means giving up something more valuable to us than just their nuclear weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.