Report: Malaysian airliner crashes in Ukraine

[UNT90]

My attitude is that the US military should only be employed to protect vital US interests. That makes me much more conservative - on this issue at least - than you.

Lol. Liberals obsessed with claiming to be conservative is always entertaining.

The fact that you can't comprehend that confronting Putin NOW IS in US interests make you as far from conservative as possible.

[CMJ]

The fact that you can't comprehend that confronting Putin NOW IS in US interests make you as far from conservative as possible.

Depends on what branch of the conservative thought. Paleoconservatives are mostly against meddling in foreign affairs.

[UNT90]

Pretty much. If we were really the world's policeman, we'd be much more involved in Africa as well. How many countries are fighting over there at any one time (especially internally)? We show up where it in some way benefits us.

BTW - there is nothing wrong with that. We could never police the whole world. Not even with our seemingly limitless capabilities.

We historocally show up where it has the potential to affect the world as a whole and not just the 2 countries or 1 country (in the case of a civil war) involved.

But that has obviously changed.

Also, don't discount the fact that the inability to garner partnerships for sanctions could be a direct result of Pres. Obama abdicating the US role in the world, mister doctor man. ;-)

Edited July 21, 2014 by UNT90

[GTWT]

Also, don't discount the fact that the inability to garner partnerships for sanctions could be a direct result of Pres. Obama abdicating the US role in the world,

In the case of the Ukraine the inability of the US to push our European allies towards more severe economic sanctions has more to do with the greater ties Europe has with Russia. Sanctions against Russia will be met with Russia cutting off the supply of natural gas to Europe. No big deal for us, but for the Europeans it could make for a cold winter.

Every country should be expected to act in its own best interest. When the best interests of the US & it's allies are not coincident it is unreasonable to expect cooperation regardless of who is president.

[UNT90]

In the case of the Ukraine the inability of the US to push our European allies towards more severe economic sanctions has more to do with the greater ties Europe has with Russia. Sanctions against Russia will be met with Russia cutting off the supply of natural gas to Europe. No big deal for us, but for the Europeans it could make for a cold winter.

Every country should be expected to act in its own best interest. When the best interests of the US & it's allies are not coincident it is unreasonable to expect cooperation regardless of who is president.

Except that countries support other countries when debts are owed. Countries have been basically told those debts are off the books by this Prsidenr.

They feel ZERO pressure to support the US.

Was Afghanistan in Great Brittian's interest?

But yet they sacrificed this:

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-10629358

Because of debts owed to the US.

Also, if you think a case can't be made that stopping Russian agression is a direct interest of every country in Europe, you must be on Ppres. Obama's staff.

Pres. Obama simply doesn't want to make this argument because it isn't politically expedient.

Edited July 22, 2014 by UNT90

[GTWT]

Except that countries support other countries when debts are owed.

Sometimes. Usually a country will support another country when their current interests coincide. Even the UK's policy of generally supporting American foreign policy is based on their perception that our countries share interests and goals. As for debt, I would think we owe them more for their sacrifices in the 20th Century than the other way around.

[Army of Dad]

As for debt, I would think we owe them more for their sacrifices in the 20th Century than the other way around.

I try to stay out of the childish squabbles you and 90 engage in, but what are you talking about in the referenced quote? You don't think we sacrificed on their behalf?

[GTWT]

I try to stay out of the childish squabbles you and 90 engage in, but what are you talking about in the referenced quote? You don't think we sacrificed on their behalf?

We certainly did. They, however, sacrificed more on battlefields in which we fought for a common cause.

In WWI we lost ~ 117K killed, the Brits lost ~800K dead. In WWII we lost 407K dead, the Brits a bit less at 384K dead. The totals for the two world wars was US = 524,000, Great Britain = 1,184,000. Obviously the US sacrifice in Korea & Viet Nam was much higher than the UK's, but overall for the 20th Century the British sacrificed more for for western civilization than we did. My point, is that '90 is wrong in asserting that Great Britain owes us a debt that must be paid by blind adherence to US foreign policy. Both countries have paid a high price for the common good of humanity. Both countries still have many interests in common. When they support us in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Ukarine it should be because our interests coincide, not because they owe us some imagionary debt.

Edited July 23, 2014 by GTWT

[UNT90]

Sometimes. Usually a country will support another country when their current interests coincide. Even the UK's policy of generally supporting American foreign policy is based on their perception that our countries share interests and goals. As for debt, I would think we owe them more for their sacrifices in the 20th Century than the other way around.

Of course you would.

You do realize that WWII was fought in the 20th Century?

[UNT90]

We certainly did. They, however, sacrificed more on battlefields in which we fought for a common cause.

In WWI we lost ~ 117K killed, the Brits lost ~800K dead. In WWII we lost 407K dead, the Brits a bit less at 384K dead. The totals for the two world wars was US = 524,000, Great Britain = 1,184,000. Obviously the US sacrifice in Korea & Viet Nam was much higher than the UK's, but overall for the 20th Century the British sacrificed more for for western civilization than we did. My point, is that '90 is wrong in asserting that Great Britain owes us a debt that must be paid by blind adherence to US foreign policy. Both countries have paid a high price for the common good of humanity. Both countries still have many interests in common. When they support us in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Ukarine it should be because our interests coincide, not because they owe us some imagionary debt.

It's actually a combination of both. It is in their national security interests to keep a close partnership with the US (no matter the ineffectiveness of the US president at the time) to protect their own national security.

As far as body counts of the combined world wars, what you need to keep in mind (as I'm sure the UK does) is that without the US entering WWII, there would be no UK, only a German substate. And the UK bears a lot of responsibility for WWII, as they continually refused to stand up to Hitler (and encouraged other European nations not to stand up to HItler, also), signing away land in an appeasement strategy that did nothing but embolden Hilter's tyrannical personality and plans. Thank you, Neville Chaimberlain. Perhaps you can see a pattern here?

[Censored by Laurie]

It's actually a combination of both. It is in their national security interests to keep a close partnership with the US (no matter the ineffectiveness of the US president at the time) to protect their own national security.

As far as body counts of the combined world wars, what you need to keep in mind (as I'm sure the UK does) is that without the US entering WWII, there would be no UK, only a German substate. And the UK bears a lot of responsibility for WWII, as they continually refused to stand up to Hitler (and encouraged other European nations not to stand up to HItler, also), signing away land in an appeasement strategy that did nothing but embolden Hilter's tyrannical personality and plans. Thank you, Neville Chaimberlain. Perhaps you can see a pattern here?

So...you're saying David Cameron is a spine-less twat?

[Army of Dad]

We certainly did. They, however, sacrificed more on battlefields in which we fought for a common cause.

In WWI we lost ~ 117K killed, the Brits lost ~800K dead. In WWII we lost 407K dead, the Brits a bit less at 384K dead. The totals for the two world wars was US = 524,000, Great Britain = 1,184,000. Obviously the US sacrifice in Korea & Viet Nam was much higher than the UK's, but overall for the 20th Century the British sacrificed more for for western civilization than we did. My point, is that '90 is wrong in asserting that Great Britain owes us a debt that must be paid by blind adherence to US foreign policy. Both countries have paid a high price for the common good of humanity. Both countries still have many interests in common. When they support us in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Ukarine it should be because our interests coincide, not because they owe us some imagionary debt.

I would argue that they had more to do with starting both wars and they contributed to the butchers bill with their own incompetence in the field (the generals, not so much the troops). They likely cost themselves and us more blood and treasure in WW2 after being scarred so badly in WW1.

I believe they owe us far more than we owe them, but our common causes and ties are what binds us the most. Those are far more powerful than the debts owed either side.

Europe has a history of putting off doing the right thing because it is hard. I think they are doing it again with Russia now. They owe it to us to listen now and save us all more later. A stronger stance against Russia is needed, weakness emboldens men like Putin. We can't/won't go it alone against Russia and we shouldn't have to.

[UNT90]

I would argue that they had more to do with starting both wars and they contributed to the butchers bill with their own incompetence in the field (the generals, not so much the troops). They likely cost themselves and us more blood and treasure in WW2 after being scarred so badly in WW1.

I believe they owe us far more than we owe them, but our common causes and ties are what binds us the most. Those are far more powerful than the debts owed either side.

Europe has a history of putting off doing the right thing because it is hard. I think they are doing it again with Russia now. They owe it to us to listen now and save us all more later. A stronger stance against Russia is needed, weakness emboldens men like Putin. We can't/won't go it alone against Russia and we shouldn't have to.

They do owe it to us to listen. The problem is we are not seeking the conversation. And I agree that any stance against Russia needs to be a NATO stance, not a US stance. The Russian people need to understand that this is the world against them. Maybe then they will hold Putin accountable for his actions.

And CBL, ignoring history for convenience knows no political boundaries.

[GTWT]

You do realize that WWII was fought in the 20th Century?

'90, in the post you're referring to I mentioned that I was referring to the 20th Century.

without the US entering WWII, there would be no UK

And without the Brits standing up to Hitler, virtually alone. while the US stayed neutral in the waar between democracy & fascism, America would now be a very lonely place.

[Cerebus]

I have tried to stay out of this thread since it is, in general, a political circle jerk tsunami, but I just wanted to correct the misconception that Americans aren't on the ground already.

CIA SAD and probably some JSOC types have been in the area since at least the original Russian buildup.

Sorry for the interruption. Please, continue your slap fighting without me.