Thread: The Ukraine situation

No USA, EU or Russia will start a war in Ukraine unless they see they have something to gain. Profits, either economical or geostrategic or both.
Howevers, people in Kiev recently showed the world that they do not need any external help to get rid of the tyranny, even in front of the armed forces.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

The world was waging a "War on Terror" not on Afghanistan, or Iraq, or even Islam, it was a "Global War on Terror" and most every country in the world agreed that Saddam needed to go..

Nope, that 'war on terror' was completely US thing, being 'global' doesn't mean that the 'world' subscribed to that.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

As to what happened after he was gone, that is the effect when everyone is screaming for the US to get out..

Except that that's not what happened. What happened was the mismanagement of the coalition provisional authority under Paul Bremer, and that was just the start.
I remember the claims that it would be a liberation war, the oppressed Iraqi people would greet US with great joy and turn into a democracy pretty much overnight, a democracy which would spread over all the arab world and the middle east.

One thing America learned the hard way is that nation building is hard and expensive and not doing it after a war means that the sacrifices were in vain. That is why nobody has an appetite for another war - the naiveté is gone.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

UN deciding that it was a good idea to take Saddam out...

Another thing that simply didn't happen. Here is a much more accurate account of the events (complete with quotations and references for the storyline)
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by gssixgun

How easily we all forget even recent history...

Indeed, that's why it is important to refer to the documented facts instead of the political spin.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

When you tell somebody in the street, "Don't or I am gonna knock you out" and they do anyway, you have a choice to make, if you keep drawing a line in the sand as you back up it loses it's effect..

Being stupid enough to make the threat doesn't mean you have to be even more stupid to carry it out regardless of the cost (I very much doubt you will attempt to do it if you found yourself with a gun suddenly being pointed at you.... in Florida).

Yeah I'll never forget how Canada got the cold shoulder when it decided that going after Saddam wasn't a good idea, and how we got replaced by Britain as America's greatest friend.

Whatever - water under the bridge as they say.

I will say this though - Frances role in Africa has impressed the heck out of me!! Go France !!

Originally Posted by earcutter

Yeah I'll never forget how Canada got the cold shoulder when it decided that going after Saddam wasn't a good idea, and how we got replaced by Britain as America's greatest friend.

... and then France became Americas oldest allies, when Obama was wanting backup with Syria and the UK said "No".

This was amusing, as the US once branded France as "cheese eating surrender monkeys".

Originally Posted by Splashone

...We can not win "the war on terror." There will always be disaffected individuals that are willing to act in a criminal manner.

But what about disaffected individuals like Osama Bin Laden who were the beneficiaries of USA training and weapons when he served as a US surrogate in the war in Afghanistan fought against the Russians? Is he not a creature of our own making? And when no longer useful, cast away without support or actively hunted down for elimination? I reiterate my request to look at what the US did to the Kurds in the 1950's. Once we were done, i.e. had regime change in Iran and oil was flowing to British Petroleum again, we turned them over to the Iranians, the Turks, the Syrians and the Iraqis for extermination. Two things are amazing. They survived and they agreed to fight for us again against Hussein. They are smarter now because they have essentially learned that they have to cut out their own territory and control their own resources to survive when they are surrounded by traditional enemies.

This same principle applies to each and every group that have been "used" as freedom fighters until regime change occurs in a desired manner, then they are branded terrorists when they have moved past their usefulness, become expendable and/or grumble about their treatment.

...(the sectarian issues in Iraq almost assure they need a "strong man" to survive as a unified country).

This has always been the guiding principle for us (whatever colonial power du jour) to control obstreperous countries. A single individual is easier to bribe or coerce to do your bidding. The real problem in Iraq was the artificial boundaries placed on countries in the middle east that cut across tribal boundaries. Rather the best option would have been to define countries based on tribal boundaries, then educate them to forms of government. The problem began with mistrust between tribal groups forced into a common government and never improved. The idea of a "strong man" is always predicated on fear or brutality to generate obedience. To which the sponsors turn a blind eye as long as exports flow.

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

But what about disaffected individuals like Osama Bin Laden who were the beneficiaries of USA training and weapons when he served as a US surrogate in the war in Afghanistan fought against the Russians? Is he not a creature of our own making? And when no longer useful, cast away without support or actively hunted down for elimination?

He was part of the forces that opposed the Russians. There was a lot of time and evolution of his philosophy that took place between his participation as mujahdeen and becoming a terrorist. We need to quit "fighting the war on terrorism" and treat it like the law enforcement problem that it is.

I reiterate my request to look at what the US did to the Kurds in the 1950's. Once we were done, i.e. had regime change in Iran and oil was flowing to British Petroleum again, we turned them over to the Iranians, the Turks, the Syrians and the Iraqis for extermination. Two things are amazing. They survived and they agreed to fight for us again against Hussein. They are smarter now because they have essentially learned that they have to cut out their own territory and control their own resources to survive when they are surrounded by traditional enemies.

This same principle applies to each and every group that have been "used" as freedom fighters until regime change occurs in a desired manner, then they are branded terrorists when they have moved past their usefulness, become expendable and/or grumble about their treatment.



This has always been the guiding principle for us (whatever colonial power du jour) to control obstreperous countries. A single individual is easier to bribe or coerce to do your bidding. The real problem in Iraq was the artificial boundaries placed on countries in the middle east that cut across tribal boundaries. Rather the best option would have been to define countries based on tribal boundaries, then educate them to forms of government. The problem began with mistrust between tribal groups and never improved. The idea of a "strong man" is always predicated on fear or brutality to generate obedience. To which the sponsors turn a blind eye as long as exports flow.

The whole of North Africa and middle east through India was carved up by the colonial powers following WWII so as to not be too stable and thereby not difficult to bring to heal. Look at the India/Pakistan issues. Read Freedom at Midnight, it documents the British division of their colony into the two countries and the bloodshed that followed. It is a good example of what transpired during that time. There is another book that I can't remember the exact title of that chronicled the exploits of the CIA's covert air force from the end of WWII through the end of Vietnam that was a very interesting read. Lots of places that we did "things" in pursuit of vague goals.

Hmmmm. It is rather interesting that most of the Americans in here are saying stay out, most of the others are saying America should stay out, so I am trying to understand what the disagreement is about ????

Or is this just an exercise in debating skills ???


Is there anyone that thinks military action is a good idea besides Putin ?? anyone???

The EU doesn't look willing to apply economic sanctions so the US doing so would be a failure

Not quite sure what everyone is discussing any longer

1. War is about Money, not a new revelation

2. It is all Bush's fault, yes we have heard it for over 5 years now
Except that many others agreed from the left side of the aisle here in the US :

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



But this still comes down to the EU and their decision

Originally Posted by gugi

Another thing that simply didn't happen. Here is a much more accurate account of the events (complete with quotations and references for the storyline)
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Indeed, that's why it is important to refer to the documented facts instead of the political spin.



Being stupid enough to make the threat doesn't mean you have to be even more stupid to carry it out regardless of the cost (I very much doubt you will attempt to do it if you found yourself with a gun suddenly being pointed at you.... in Florida).

Your link proves my point, just a quick count look like 11 lines drawn in the sand there...

"United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284)"



Here you go Ivan

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

Tons of fun for you to peruse


Although it is all : for this thread

Deleted. Reason: "not helping"

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Your link proves my point

Let me remind you your point then:

Originally Posted by gssixgun

UN deciding that it was a good idea to take Saddam out...

Here's the situation in UN just before the war (I color coded it red and blue so that you can't miss it):

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".
Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on 10 March that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the U.S. and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.
In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

Note the bold part in the second to last sentence - that is exactly the opposite to your claim. All of those quotes from US politicians, regardless of their political affiliation are completely irrelevant to your claim which is about a worldwide support for the war.


I think it is pretty clear what this thread is about - it's in the first post. There are many ways to be 'involved' or not and as long as the US military spending is 4.4% of it's GDP it will continue to stick its nose in everybody's business.
I also happen to think that understanding the situation and having accurate picture of history is quite important. I do not see how ignorance about the relationships among Russia, Ukraine, Europe, former soviet states, etc. gives any strength to an argument.
For example, I disagree with your assertion that Putin wants to have a war in Ukraine - to me this seems to be the most important component in the calculation of how US should be involved.