Sucks to be them. Russia has not forgotten that many Ukranians welcomed the Nazis as liberators in WWII.
Russia needs the vital port of Sevastpol and so they took it. The US has no business meddling in that area and is only pissing off
the Russians. Obama, McCain, Kerry are IDIOTS! Fix our country first before worrying about others!
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Apparently, the British government calls this "talking softly and carrying a big stick". I'm inclined to call it "being terrified to take any sort of action because the financial services industry relies far too much on all that Russian money sloshing around in the City of London".
Apparently, the British government calls this "talking softly and carrying a big stick". I'm inclined to call it "being terrified to take any sort of action because the financial services industry relies far too much on all that Russian money sloshing around in the City of London".
A little over-dramatic IMO, but worth the read. I sincerely doubt anything catastrophic is going to come from this. 700 Ukrainian soldiers defected today btw. I think the ultimate goal for Putin is Crimea and that's the extent of it. The rest is saber rattling.
the guy whose economic/financial knowledge consists of pasting from reuters articles is hypothesizing stock market crashes as if all of this exists in a vacuum
lol. give it a rest
what do you think the U.S. should do
don't think we should be getting involved at all
You're advocating the exact same thing Bon Vivant proposed.
not at all. his post implied that we're some sort of gatekeeper that can either choose to either let this happen or not. we have 0 leverage in this situation and things will become exponentially worse the instant the US military gets involved in this situation.
I personally do not think we should get involved and also think that our presence can only make the situation worse. I also do not think that anyone should be encouraging "mistakes" that will more than likely cause innocent bystanders to get killed. but hey, that's just me.
You are both advocating non-intervention. Your reasoning may be different, but your proposed action is identical.
[]not at all. his post implied that we're some sort of gatekeeper that can either choose to either let this happen or not. we have 0 leverage in this situation and things will become exponentially worse the instant the US military gets involved in this situation.
I didn't imply anything, Tattoo.
You live on Fantasy Island. The words I used were clear.
the guy whose economic/financial knowledge consists of pasting from reuters articles is hypothesizing stock market crashes as if all of this exists in a vacuum
lol. give it a rest
LOL! @ Hypothesis.
The market lost 11% in one day. The rouble is at it's lowest value in a long while, if not ever.
You're not too bright. Even if your hypothesis about my economic/finacial knowledge were true (here's a hint: It's not), it would still far exceed yours.
the guy whose economic/financial knowledge consists of pasting from reuters articles is hypothesizing stock market crashes as if all of this exists in a vacuum
lol. give it a rest
LOL! @ Hypothesis.
The market lost 11% in one day. The rouble is at it's lowest value in a long while, if not ever.
You're not too bright. Even if your hypothesis about my economic/finacial knowledge were true (here's a hint: It's not), it would still far exceed yours.
this coming from the guy who didn't know the difference between a treasury note and bond? sure thing pal.
you're forecasting some sort of financial doom for Russia cos some "oligarchs" and investors are going to get fed up with putin. couldn't be further from the truth and has zero basis in reality. a majority of these "oligarchs" have a lot to gain from putin pushing forth with this.
[]not at all. his post implied that we're some sort of gatekeeper that can either choose to either let this happen or not. we have 0 leverage in this situation and things will become exponentially worse the instant the US military gets involved in this situation.
I didn't imply anything, Tattoo.
You live on Fantasy Island. The words I used were clear.
"We should let him" implies a lot. if your meaning wasn't what I previously posted then maybe you should write what you mean instead of posing as some political expert.
[]not at all. his post implied that we're some sort of gatekeeper that can either choose to either let this happen or not. we have 0 leverage in this situation and things will become exponentially worse the instant the US military gets involved in this situation.
I didn't imply anything, Tattoo.
You live on Fantasy Island. The words I used were clear.
"We should let him" implies a lot. if your meaning wasn't what I previously posted then maybe you should write what you mean instead of posing as some political expert.
I did. You saw what you wanted to because you're a weird little dude.
you're forecasting some sort of financial doom for Russia cos some "oligarchs" and investors are going to get fed up with putin. couldn't be further from the truth and has zero basis in reality. a majority of these "oligarchs" have a lot to gain from putin pushing forth with this.
11% drop in the Russian stock market in one day is firmly grounded in reality, Tattoo.
It happened yesterday.
Nice job derailing what could have been a decent thread, too.
you're forecasting some sort of financial doom for Russia cos some "oligarchs" and investors are going to get fed up with putin. couldn't be further from the truth and has zero basis in reality. a majority of these "oligarchs" have a lot to gain from putin pushing forth with this.
11% drop in the Russian stock market in one day is firmly grounded in reality, Tattoo.
It happened yesterday.
Nice job derailing what could have been a decent thread, too.
I don't think I ever disputed your copy and pasting skills. However, I did post this:
PatrickCrazy said:
the guy whose economic/financial knowledge consists of pasting from reuters articles is hypothesizing stock market crashes as if all of this exists in a vacuum
lol. give it a rest
in response to this:
Bon Vivant said:
Putin may not care, but the rest of the Russian oligarchs and investors do. Let's see if Putin cares if the the Russian market and rouble lose half their value.
REMEMBER WHEN WE ALL LOL'D WHEN MITT ROMNEY SAID RUSSIA WAS AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE ENEMY?
GLOBAL WARMING IS AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE ENEMY!
y'all remember when Putin stated his clear preference for Obama over Mitt during the elections tho?
dude's no dummy.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Tired old cliches about empire notwithstanding (it takes one to know one), this is pretty much dead-on.
In the days of the Cold War, Western leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were seen as dependable defenders of freedom in the eyes of those behind the Iron Curtain. Their modern equivalents barely pay lipservice to the notion.
Tired old cliches about empire notwithstanding (it takes one to know one), this is pretty much dead-on.
In the days of the Cold War, Western leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were seen as dependable defenders of freedom in the eyes of those behind the Iron Curtain. Their modern equivalents barely pay lipservice to the notion.
Good thing Spike Lee doesn't live in London
b/w
Who needs freedom, our government will take care of all our needs.
Tired old cliches about empire notwithstanding (it takes one to know one), this is pretty much dead-on.
In the days of the Cold War, Western leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were seen as dependable defenders of freedom in the eyes of those behind the Iron Curtain. Their modern equivalents barely pay lipservice to the notion.
Good thing Spike Lee doesn't live in London
he doesn't need to, NYC is attracting plenty of its own Russian money. luxury apartments being treated the same as British offshore accounts.
Tired old cliches about empire notwithstanding (it takes one to know one), this is pretty much dead-on.
In the days of the Cold War, Western leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were seen as dependable defenders of freedom in the eyes of those behind the Iron Curtain. Their modern equivalents barely pay lipservice to the notion.
Good thing Spike Lee doesn't live in London
he doesn't need to, NYC is attracting plenty of its own Russian money. luxury apartments being treated the same as British offshore accounts.
Tired old cliches about empire notwithstanding (it takes one to know one), this is pretty much dead-on.
In the days of the Cold War, Western leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were seen as dependable defenders of freedom in the eyes of those behind the Iron Curtain. Their modern equivalents barely pay lipservice to the notion.
Thatcher? That rancid old hag thought Ireland was her own personal sandpit.
Good riddance.
And there is no Iron Curtain anymore, so what's with the apples and oranges comparison? You know what Reagan and Thatcher would have done in this exact same situation?
Jackshit. Anyone who thinks the West will or should go to war over this is a cannibalistic necrophile-level wackaloon.
I had been meaning to read this thread for a few days, eager to see if the Soul Strut community had any enlightenment on the issue. Sadly, it was not to be. Webmasters, does Soul Strut get any traffic from the former USSR?
Was chatting with my wife about this on the weekend. I don't know that a full-scale war will erupt, but I'm nervous that it might. The potential is definitely there.
I'm on the other end of that spectrum, I don't think there is any way a war would happened (apart from some Russian/Ukraine skirmishing). Which country, if they wanted to (which I don't think they do), would be able to send troops to Ukraine to defend it?
I don't think the US military is in a position to invade, and unlike some of the other countries they have invaded in the past, if they try to just bomb the Russians they would get a run for the money since the Russians would be able to match them in air power (unlike say Afghanistan or Iraq). Last I checked Europe is broke as fuck, so I don't see them putting their hand up for a fight against Russia.
The Chinese will just be watching this and hoping Putin succeeds with no dramas, so they can pull the same shit down the line if they want.
Whether you agree with Putin or not, he has picked the best time to do this (imo) and not many other nations with any might can raise a valid argument against his invasion since they have all done the same (or would do so). At the same time I think I don;t Putin won't overplay this. The Russians will probably be happy taking Crimea and splitting Ukraine into two countries.
But then again according to Nostredamus, the next anti-christ will come from Russia, right?
So maybe this is the start of the muthafucking ending
Secretary of State John Kerry warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday if last-ditch talks over the weekend to resolve the crisis in Ukraine failed to persuade Moscow to soften its stance.
It was almost ten years ago when, before the House International Relations Committee, I objected to the US Government funding NGOs to meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine. At the time the ÔÇ£Orange RevolutionÔÇØ had forced a regime change in Ukraine with the help of millions of dollars from Washington.
At that time I told the Committee:
We do not know exactly how many millionsÔÇöor tens of millionsÔÇöof dollars the United States government spent on the presidential election in Ukraine. We do know that much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate, and that through a series of cut-out non-governmental organizations (NGOs)ÔÇöboth American and UkrainianÔÇömillions of dollars ended up in support of the presidential candidate...
I was worried about millions of dollars that the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various related organizations spent to meddle in UkraineÔÇÖs internal affairs. But it turns out that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Last December, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland gave a speech in which she admitted that since 1991 the US government has:
[I]nvested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine...in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government.
This is the same State Department official who was caught on tape just recently planning in detail the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.
That five billion dollars appears to have bought a revolution in Ukraine. But what do the US taxpayers get, who were forced to pay for this interventionism? Nothing good. Ukraine is a bankrupt country that will need tens of billions of dollars to survive the year. Already the US-selected prime minister has made a trip to Washington to ask for more money.
And what will the Ukrainians get? Their democracy has been undermined by the US-backed coup in Kiev. In democracies, power is transferred peacefully through elections, not seized by rebels in the streets. At least it used to be.
The IMF will descend on Ukraine to implement yet another of its failed rescue plans, which enrich the well-connected and international bankers at the expense of the local population. The IMF adds debt, organizes sweetheart deals for foreign corporations, and demands that the local population accept ÔÇ£austerityÔÇØ in exchange for ÔÇ£reformÔÇØ that never seems to produce the promised results.
The groundwork for this disaster has been laid by NED, USAID, and the army of NGOs they have funded over the years in Ukraine.
Supporters of NED and its related organizations will argue that nothing is wrong with sending US dollars to ÔÇ£promote democracyÔÇØ overseas. The fact is, however, that NED, USAID, and the others have nothing to do with promoting democracy and everything to do with destroying democracy.
It is not democracy to send in billions of dollars to push regime change overseas. It isnÔÇÖt democracy to send in the NGOs to re-write laws and the constitution in places like Ukraine. It is none of our business.
How should we promote democracy overseas? First, we should stop the real isolationists ÔÇö those who seek to impose sanctions and blockades and restrictions that impede our engagement overseas. We can promote democracy with a US private sector that engages overseas. A society that prospers through increased trade ties with the US will be far more likely to adopt practices and policies that continue that prosperity and encourage peace.
In 2005, arguing against funding NED in the US foreign assistance authorization bill, I said:
The National Endowment for Democracy...has very little to do with democracy. It is an organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded ÔÇÿpeople's revolutionsÔÇÖ overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin's writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic movements.
Sadly, matters are even worse now. To promote democracy overseas, NED and all other meddling US government funded NGOs should be disbanded immediately.
Comments
Russia needs the vital port of Sevastpol and so they took it. The US has no business meddling in that area and is only pissing off
the Russians. Obama, McCain, Kerry are IDIOTS! Fix our country first before worrying about others!
Ding ding ding...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134_Page2.html#.UxWQBF5kJYJ
A little over-dramatic IMO, but worth the read. I sincerely doubt anything catastrophic is going to come from this. 700 Ukrainian soldiers defected today btw. I think the ultimate goal for Putin is Crimea and that's the extent of it. The rest is saber rattling.
You are both advocating non-intervention. Your reasoning may be different, but your proposed action is identical.
I didn't imply anything, Tattoo.
You live on Fantasy Island. The words I used were clear.
LOL! @ Hypothesis.
The market lost 11% in one day. The rouble is at it's lowest value in a long while, if not ever.
You're not too bright. Even if your hypothesis about my economic/finacial knowledge were true (here's a hint: It's not), it would still far exceed yours.
Patty's hard-on for me hasn't gone away, apparently.
It's hilarious.
you're forecasting some sort of financial doom for Russia cos some "oligarchs" and investors are going to get fed up with putin. couldn't be further from the truth and has zero basis in reality. a majority of these "oligarchs" have a lot to gain from putin pushing forth with this.
Patty strikes again!
AMIRITE?
I did. You saw what you wanted to because you're a weird little dude.
11% drop in the Russian stock market in one day is firmly grounded in reality, Tattoo.
It happened yesterday.
Nice job derailing what could have been a decent thread, too.
I don't think I ever disputed your copy and pasting skills. However, I did post this:
in response to this:
Were you able to follow that?
y'all remember when Putin stated his clear preference for Obama over Mitt during the elections tho?
dude's no dummy.
In the days of the Cold War, Western leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were seen as dependable defenders of freedom in the eyes of those behind the Iron Curtain. Their modern equivalents barely pay lipservice to the notion.
Good thing Spike Lee doesn't live in London
b/w
Who needs freedom, our government will take care of all our needs.
he doesn't need to, NYC is attracting plenty of its own Russian money. luxury apartments being treated the same as British offshore accounts.
Thatcher? That rancid old hag thought Ireland was her own personal sandpit.
Good riddance.
And there is no Iron Curtain anymore, so what's with the apples and oranges comparison? You know what Reagan and Thatcher would have done in this exact same situation?
Jackshit. Anyone who thinks the West will or should go to war over this is a cannibalistic necrophile-level wackaloon.
only from scammy dudes who are trying to move super secret, hypnotic, unkown braek scat monsters.
I'm on the other end of that spectrum, I don't think there is any way a war would happened (apart from some Russian/Ukraine skirmishing). Which country, if they wanted to (which I don't think they do), would be able to send troops to Ukraine to defend it?
I don't think the US military is in a position to invade, and unlike some of the other countries they have invaded in the past, if they try to just bomb the Russians they would get a run for the money since the Russians would be able to match them in air power (unlike say Afghanistan or Iraq). Last I checked Europe is broke as fuck, so I don't see them putting their hand up for a fight against Russia.
The Chinese will just be watching this and hoping Putin succeeds with no dramas, so they can pull the same shit down the line if they want.
Whether you agree with Putin or not, he has picked the best time to do this (imo) and not many other nations with any might can raise a valid argument against his invasion since they have all done the same (or would do so). At the same time I think I don;t Putin won't overplay this. The Russians will probably be happy taking Crimea and splitting Ukraine into two countries.
But then again according to Nostredamus, the next anti-christ will come from Russia, right?
So maybe this is the start of the muthafucking ending
All Options Are On The Table!
Yeah, both of them.
- Vague Hollow Threats Of Sanctions
- Vague Hollow Threats Of "Isolation"
Secretary of State John Kerry warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday if last-ditch talks over the weekend to resolve the crisis in Ukraine failed to persuade Moscow to soften its stance.