Thread: The Ukraine situation

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Once again you are interpreting US history incorrectly, isolationism is our history, only since WW2 have we become embroiled in world affairs...

I didn't say it isn't, I said that so is slavery, racism and genocide, therefore advocating a policy based on historical precedent is not the best argument.

If Ukraine is EU's problem, not being hypocritical requires leaving Korea, Japan, and Taiwan sort themselves out with China, and Israel deal with its neighbors without US involvement.

Originally Posted by gugi

I didn't say it isn't, I said that so is slavery, racism and genocide, therefore advocating a policy based on historical precedent is not the best argument.

If Ukraine is EU's problem, not being hypocritical requires leaving Korea, Japan, and Taiwan sort themselves out with China, and Israel deal with its neighbors without US involvement.

Not reading posts, and simply throwing out anti-American rhetoric only diminishes your points

http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...ml#post1302787

Hey, I was simply correcting your misstatement of what I actually posted. I explained in detail what I meant by un-american, you kept insisting that 'american is what american did', except that your pick of representative deeds is different from my pick.

You may consider my previous post as 'anti-american rhetoric', I consider it as being objective which I do value more.

BTW in that old thread about what is great about USA, nobody brought up isolationism/minding-our-own-business, but generosity, willingness to stand up for freedom and helping others were. That was 4 years ago though.

Follow the Money. All of a sudden the Ukraine is bankrupt and the US has to give them 1Billion to pay off the Bankers? Are we helping the Ukraine or are we paying off the banks again??

Originally Posted by Johnus

Follow the Money. All of a sudden the Ukraine is bankrupt and the US has to give them 1Billion to pay off the Bankers? Are we helping the Ukraine or are we paying off the banks again??

Al of a sudden? They have been in deep economic doo-doo for a long time and are into it deep with the Russians.

Originally Posted by gugi

It is not strictly about money. Ukraine is heavily subsidized by Russia, that's why there is no alternative to it staying under Russian influence.

It is about restoring Russia to it's former superpower status - that is the legacy Putin wants and he thinks it is achievable. He just spent more money on a winter olympics than all former winter olympics combined.

Of course, extracting money is far easier when you are super power, so the long term strategy is very meaningful.

Then Putin is a KGB officer, he is actually a bit of the opposite of the macho image that he has been cultivating recently - he is reserved, calculating, and cautious.

He is most certainly not going to give control over Crimea any more than US would give control over Guam. I think this has been a base point in everybody's calculation no matter which side they are on.

Then there are the historic ties between Russia and Ukraine - the political and religious origins of Russia are in Kiev. Even a superficial familiarity with the history of that region is enough for the conclusion that Putin is not going to go to war with Ukraine.

So, what should be the US policy? Americans notoriously want everything to be simple, regardless of whether it is or it isn't. Either 'go all in' or 'stay the hell out of there'. In my view this is a serious flaw. There is a continuum of possible engagements and the extremes, while easy to understand are rarely the optimum.
If US wants to 'stand' for something meaningful it can not simply shrug it off as somebody else's problem. There were demonstrations against a corrupt, authoritarian, and kleptocratic government which lasted months, and close to 100 people were killed. The demonstrators vary from neo-facists, to nationalists, to democtats. At the end the government ceded control and left the country. A separate country pretty much annexed an autonomous region just because it could do it with impunity.
Brushing all this off as 'not my concern' is simply un-american in the sense that if you do it then you do not deserve hot dogs, beer, and fireworks come 4th of July.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

The US has a rich history of isolationism, in fact many Americans wanted nothing to do with WW2, until Pearl Harbor which some say Roosevelt pushed Japan into, but that is even more conspiracy theory...
So to imply that the US saying "It is not our concern" is somehow un-American is simply not true, it is actually very American. Looking back at US history it seems the worst move we ever made was it become involved with the UN

The world is however a much entangled place, with many strings going to many places, and ties attached to those strings, so it might no longer be possible for the US to sit back and watch...


Isolationism

Originally Posted by gugi

Hey, I was simply correcting your misstatement of what I actually posted. I explained in detail what I meant by un-american, you kept insisting that 'american is what american did', except that your pick of representative deeds is different from my pick.

You may consider my previous post as 'anti-american rhetoric', I consider it as being objective which I do value more.

BTW in that old thread about what is great about USA, nobody brought up isolationism/minding-our-own-business, but generosity, willingness to stand up for freedom and helping others were. That was 4 years ago though.

gugi, one thing to consider, though, is that slavery in Europe existed for some 3400 years or more in Europe, from Ancient Greece to Great Britain... and in many cases was replaced by serfdom (which, IMO, is just an evolved form of slavery). For that matter, Britain only outlawed slavery some 60 years before we did in the U.S. after our civil war. Sure, 60 years is 60 years, but you're talking about a nation who, at that time, was less than 100 years old. It took Britain how many CENTURIES to do so (ended in 1807)? Or Spain (ended in 1542)? Or the Netherlands (ended in 1829)? Or Portugal (ended in 1624)?

Concerning racism and genocide, let's not forget about the Crusades, the rise and fall of Hitler, etc., etc. The point I'm making here is that we're all human and flawed, and all of us are certainly capable of being monsters.

I'm not trying to attack you on this, but there's an old saying my grandfather had... If you're going to point a finger at someone, that's fine. But, remember that when you do, more of your own will be pointing back at you.

Concerning Ukraine, I keep thinking of India and Pakistan, and hope for the sake of human life that there will be no violent outcome.

Originally Posted by crouton976

I'm not trying to attack you on this, but there's an old saying my grandfather had... If you're going to point a finger at someone, that's fine. But, remember that when you do, more of your own will be pointing back at you.

I thought I repeatedly made very clear the reason for pointing fingers - I never said the history of US is worse than that of others. I pointed it out because we have evolved from the moral norms of the 19th century, however saying one thing and acting the opposite way brings that evolution into question.

Here's a quote everybody is familiar with:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While those who wrote that failed miserably short at living up to it, it shouldn't be an excuse for us. You can aspire to isolationism or you can aspire to standing against injustice.
Propping dictatorships is certainly not an involvement to be proud of, whether it is done by US, Russia, China, UK, France, etc., but not getting involved at all is not the only alternative - how about various sanctions against those dictators?

The world reality has changed drastically since George Washington's days. Nowadays european countries do not try to take over the wold (not by military power), and the pretext for involvement in others' affairs is usually humanitarian. I am not saying that there aren't economic and geopolitical interests, but those usually are not enough to start a conflict. This is a significant progress from the times when invading countries and killing people was done just because you wanted their wealth. The reasons for that american isolationism of 18th and 19th centuries are just no longer present. But the founding belief that all human beings deserve to be free still is.

Originally Posted by gugi

I didn't say it isn't, I said that so is slavery, racism and genocide, therefore advocating a policy based on historical precedent is not the best argument.

Somehow, I missed this statement. My apologies, good sir.

Still, though, I may only be 31 years old, but in that time EVERYONE I know has wanted to stay out of every conflict/war as far back as I can remember... even living in Conservative-Red-State-Georgia. My personal feeling is that our President is trying to get us involved in something that the nation doesn't really want, through actual war or through sanctions. Even a lot of conservative Christians are questioning our stance on Israel, which is pretty strange. Based on our history as a nation (referring to the American people, not our politicians), I'd say we've been pretty consistent in our stance. Saying that basing an argument of isolationism on historic precedent because of slavery, racism and genocide also being part of our history doesn't track. No one is arguing about slavery, racism and genocide being wrong. They are completely different subjects altogether and should have no bearing on this argument. To say that they should be relevant would, in a fashion, be similar to rejecting a possible cure for cancer just because Charles Manson discovered it. Just because the man is a monster doesn't mean that his discovery wouldn't be valid.

Concerning our desire for isolationism and why it might be the best solution, I liken it to the PTSD symptoms soldiers experience after war. Since we're considered the police of the world, we can only fight so much before it takes a toll on us (the American people, that is... those in the military industrial complex may be different). Also, I liken it to a father teaching his son to be a man- strong, independent and capable of handling his own affairs. Sure, the father will protect his son while the son cannot defend himself, but at some point that kid has to learn to stand on his own two feet. That is not to say that once the child is grown the father will not support them if they find themselves in trouble and cannot get out of it after giving it their best effort.

That's not strictly an American trait... that's the natural order of things.

Concerning European countries not trying to take over parts of the world through military action, I have to respectfully disagree. If what you are saying was true, this thread wouldn't exist. I don't see Putin's actions and involvement in the affairs of Ukraine humanitarian in any fashion. For that matter, and not limited to just Europe, this same thing still happens across the globe. From Iraq to Russia to Israel to North Korea to even, yes, the United States (read: control of oil in the Middle East), we as a species tend to try and either acquire what someone else has by force or influence them extremely heavily for our own benefit.

If we instead focused on our own affairs here at home and made the lives of our own citizens better first, you would potentially see an America that would be far more prosperous domestically and better suited, able and willing to get involved in the affairs of the world. That's how collective and unified efforts should work- by free choice, not out of some feeling of duty or obligation. we should WANT to feel like helping others, not be guilt tripped into it. Ironically, on Reddit the other day, there was a thread about things Americans do that people from other nations found strange, and one thing that kept coming up was how friendly and willing to help we were... it blew people's minds.

With that said, I have no hesitation in making the hypothesis that if Americans were happy with things at home, we would be far more willing as a nation to try and help the rest of the world, not out of duty, but out of desire. As it stands now, many people are whispering of civil disobedience, revolt, riots, etc.

Further (and I apologize for the wall of text here), how many countries have imposed sanctions on the U.S. as "standing against injustice" when it has been confirmed and basically thrown in our faces that our own government is spying on all of us? How many nations have said that if the proposed FCC monitors of news broadcasts are put into place, effectively becoming mass censors of the free press, that the U.S. will have sanctions imposed against it? I just don't see the give part of a give and take relationship with other countries, only the take.

Another point of view from the outside. Sorry about the commercials.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows...ID/2440739811/

Bob

Well, as I said, US has pretty much self appointed as the worlds superpower by its military spending. For a country surrounded by two oceans, one very friendly country in the north and another far weaker in any respect to the south, the so called 'defense' budget is completely out of proportion.
You don't spend 4.4% of GDP 'just in case', you spend it because the benefit outweighs the cost. So, if that would be the spending, and I don't see it getting drastically reduced, it makes a lot more sense to use it for creating goodwill by defending worthwhile causes than on what is termed as realpolitik. I think it is pretty well established from history that the second approach while providing some short and medium-term gains has pretty terrible long term consequences.
For example you can not continue to kill hundreds of civilians in other countries as collateral damage in the 'global war against terror' and expect the people in those countries to have favorable opinion of you.

Originally Posted by crouton976

Further (and I apologize for the wall of text here), how many countries have imposed sanctions on the U.S. as "standing against injustice" when it has been confirmed and basically thrown in our faces that our own government is spying on all of us? How many nations have said that if the proposed FCC monitors of news broadcasts are put into place, effectively becoming mass censors of the free press, that the U.S. will have sanctions imposed against it? I just don't see the give part of a give and take relationship with other countries, only the take.

If you look around the world you'll notice that many countries are in the process of enacting laws which would be pretty damaging for the US IT industry.



On Ukraine, I'd make another observation - nobody seems to be interested much in the internal politics, which in my opinion is driving this. I thought of posting a link to an article, which I found interesting, but being in russian it's probably inaccessible to the majority in this thread.