Reply With Quote
McCain: ‘It’s Tragic’ There’s No U.S. Military Option In Ukraine
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/07/3378371/mccain-military-option-ukraine/
It's tragic there is no mental competence test option for Congresscritters
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secur...n-Crimea-videoObama may be right that the invasion of one country by another is not condoned under international law. But the complicating factor in the Ukraine case, many international relations experts note, is that the invading power is Russia: a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, a nuclear power, and a former empire that until 1954 did include Crimea as part of its territory.
Moreover, Russia does appear to have the people of Crimea on its side.
These complications help explain why the Obama administration and in particular Secretary of State John Kerry continue to press for a diplomatic solution.
McCain: ‘It’s Tragic’ There’s No U.S. Military Option In Ukraine
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/07/3378371/mccain-military-option-ukraine/
It's tragic there is no mental competence test option for Congresscritters
"The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins." iow, Henry's VN policy was a 100% failure
Afghanistan and Iraq are also 100% failures
But, the MIC alway$ win$.
Wow...
The master RINO got one right:
We have no option here. Anything we do militarily, we risk starting WWIII.Later in the interview, when host Andrea Mitc asked if there is a military option for the U.S. in Ukraine, the Arizona Republican sounded despondent. “I’d love to tell you that there is Andrea, but frankly I do not see it,” he said, adding, “I wish that there were. … I do not see a military option and it’s tragic.”
diplomacy isn't nothing.We have no option here.
He's right in his assessment but that's totally offset by his standing desire to start another war and waste Other People's Lives and US $Bs.
Repugs, every single one of them, and the assholes who elect them.
He said: "I do not see a military option."
Does diplomacy include moving in warships to the Black Sea?
I hate to admit this, but I tend to agree with you on this one.
Ukraine is About Oil. So Was World War I
Ukraine is a lot more portentous than it appears. It is fundamentally about the play for Persian Gulf oil. So was World War I. The danger lies in the chance of runaway escalation, just like World War I.
Let’s put Ukraine into a global strategic context.
The oil is running out. God isn’t making any more dinosaurs and melting them into the earth’s crust. Instead, as developing world countries aspire to first-world living standards, the draw-down on the world’s finite supply of oil is accelerating. The rate at which known reserves are being depleted is four times that at which new oil is being discovered.
That’s why oil cost $26 a barrel in 2001, but $105 today. It’s supply and demand.
Oil recalls that old expression: “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” In industrial civilization, the nation that controls the oil is king. And 60% of the known oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. That’s why the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003: to seize control of the oil. Alan Greenspan told at least one truth in his life: “I hate to have to admit what everybody knows. Iraq is about oil.”
But the U.S. lost the war in Iraq. Remember? The U.S. was going to install a democracy and 14 permanent bases there. They’re not there. The U.S. was run out after proving unable to pacify the Islamic jihad it had unleashed under the pretext of searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Instead, Iraq allied itself with Iran, its Shi’ite comrade-in-arms in the Muslim Wars of Religion.
So today, the battle for the Persian Gulf is being carried out through its two regional powers, Saudi Arabia, the champion of Sunni Islam, and Iran, the torch carrier for Shi’ite Islam. Think of the Wars between the Protestants and Catholics in the 1500s. The U.S. backs Saudi Arabia, as it has done since 1945, when Roosevelt cut a deal with Ibn Saud to protect his illegitimate throne in exchange for the House of Saud only selling oil in dollars.
Iran, of course, is implacably hostile to the U.S. after the U.S. overthrew Iran’s democratically elected president, Mosaddegh, in 1953 and installed its own fascist puppet, the Shah of Iran. The Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979 and installed a fundamentalist theocracy that continues to this day.
Iran’s main ally in the region is Syria, which the U.S. has been trying to overthrow for three years by helping the al-Qaeda-linked rebels that are attacking Syria. Syria’s chief military patron is Russia, which conveniently bailed Obama out of his childish “red line” declaration last year, a declaration he had neither the military nor political nor diplomatic capacity to carry out.
So, the upheaval in Ukraine is really about the U.S. trying to weaken Syria’s patron, Russia. If Russia is weakened, Syria is weakened. If Syria is weakened, Iran is weakened.
If Iran is weakened, the U.S. has a better chance of seizing control of the world’s largest reserves of oil. That is the Great Game that is going on here.
The problem is the risk of escalation. It’s not at all fanciful to imagine some ambitious Ukrainian colonel firing at Russian forces. Russia fires back, decisively. This puts Ukraine at risk for its European suitor, the EU. So NATO intervenes to try to intimidate Russia. Russia retaliates to blacken NATO's nose. And before anyone knows it, the U.S. is dragged into a shooting war where no one can understand how it ends. This is almost exactly how World War I started.
The Germans were gunning for Persian Gulf oil via their relationship with the Ottoman Empire. But this would have given Germany a choke hold on England, which had only just converted its navy to oil. So, England reversed its historical rivalry with France, in 1904, and with Russia, in 1907, to try to contain Germany. But a minor, unanticipated dust-up in the Balkans in the summer of 1914 escalated into The Greatest War The World Had Ever Known.
In a freak event, a Serbian teenager killed the heir-apparent to the Austrian-Hungarian throne. So Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. Russia couldn’t stand idle as its sole Balkan ally, Serbia, was humiliated. So it mobilized on Austria-Hungary, an effective declaration of war.
Germany moved to defend its ally, Austria-Hungary, by attacking Russia’s ally, France. England, France’s ally, responded by declaring war on Germany. Within less than one month of a minor incident in a minor region of the continent, all the major powers of Europe were at war.
World War I would inflict 27 million casualties through the industrialization of human slaughter. It destroyed four great empires, more than had expired in any single event, ever. Eleven new nations were created in its aftermath, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. It was the event that shifted the locus of global power from Europe to the U.S., where it has resided ever since. It rearranged the architecture of global power more than any event of the last thousand years.
So the portent of Ukraine is a global strategic order hanging in the balance. The U.S. must subdue Russia to gain control of the world’s oil. It is the same strategic objective that is driving the U.S.’s subversion of the democratically elected government in Venezuela: it sits on one of the world’s largest reserves of oil. Indeed, all of the U.S.’ aggressions on Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, and its subversion of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, can be understood in this context.
The wild card in the whole fracas is China. China is the biggest customer of Iranian oil, and the largest international investor in Venezuela. These represent some of China’s moves to counter the U.S. attempt to control the world’s oil. The potential escalation from Ukraine as the U.S. pressures Syria, Iran, and Venezuela, inescapably involves China.
If China becomes involved, trying to defend its allies and its supply of oil, it is anybody’s guess where it ends. But it won’t be pretty.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/08
OMG...
It's not about oil.
Bouton's the lemming from Common Dreams...
What's Ukraine about?
Crimea wants independence. It's almost 60% Russian, less than 25% Ukrainian, and about 12% tartan. It looks like the only way they will get out of Ukrainian rule, which treats ethic Russians like dirt, is to become part of Russia.
WC's myopia is a hilarious as his unintended comedy.
The US and NATO have been pushing NATO right up against Russia's border, poking the Russian bear, "defensive" missiles in Poland pointed at Russia, supporting the Ukranian extreme right neo-Nazis to bring down Russia's Ukranian puppet.
Geo-politics is always about securing access to energy (oil).
Your libertarian hero Wombat Hair plays the energy card:
Rand Paul: My Ukraine foreign policy is ‘drilling every possible conceivable place’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/0...e+Raw+Story%29
You are serious?
You really believe Ukraine is all about oil.
The protesters that came out in mass had oil on their minds?
So the model for this current situation is WWI...
Boots, you also enjoy huge over simplifications if it suits your taste.
Oil may not be foremost for Urkanians (Russian gas certainly is), perhaps, but Ukraine-on-Russia's-border-into-NATO is a piece of West-vs-East geo-politics.
Do you MSM-headline reading assholes think:
Russia-Syria-Iran-China vs USA-UK-NATO-Saudia Arabia is NOT about geo-politics of energy (oil, and coal)
Neocons want war against Iran (with Ukraine as proxy for Russia-Syria-Iran) not because of the nuclear angle (neocons' smokescreen) but for the same reason the neocons invaded, destroyed (and lost) Iraq: oil.
No I don't believe every conflict is geopolitical and about oil.
In this case economic independence is definitely part of the conflict. And part of any economy involves having a source of energy. But it's all oil is a huge "let's make it black and white"
God created man specially, the Bible says so, end of story.
Ukraine, if ever integrated into NATO and EU, will be economically dependent, esp energy dependent, on Western $Bs and energy.
"God created man specially"
The often (intentionallly) opaque bigger picture is always the key to understanding the smaller picture, like Ukraine.
The industrial world is totally dependent on oil, that's BLACK AND WHITE.
The collapse of the world price of oil in the early 80s, plus its disaster in Afghanistan, exposed its bankruptcy and forced the collapse of USSR (not St Ronnie's cheap Hollywood bloviating), since selling oil was USSR's main source for hard currency $$$.
iow, oil played a huge part in the destruction of the USSR. btw, gates et all at CIA lied about Russia's strength to support, fitted the CIA "facts" to fit St Ronnie pumping transferring taxpayers' $100Bs into the MIC.
So the oil reserves and unexplored shale structures that almost certainly exist in a Russia should make it THE economic power in the world if it's ALL about oil.
So why is the Russian economy so rotten?
Why don't you buy Russian bonds if they hold the black gold.
Think of the future Boots, if oil is the currency, jump on those Russian bonds.
Dont you see a bright future for the Russian economy?
Its more than just having oil Boots. It's way bigger than that.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-09-2014 at 11:33 AM.
It is and it isn't about oil.
To Europe and the US its about the gas pipelines and wanting to place missiles in Ukraine. that's why they engineered the coup in Ukraine and propped up neo-nazis to take over.
The neo-nazis want to be assholes.
And the crimeans, if they didn't before, now just want to be part of Russia.
You can't do with oil if you can't get it out of the ground efficiently because your political process is totally corrupt and you can't innovate that energy money into a diverse economy that supplies goods and services other than oil.
Torture backer Cheney wants ‘military options’ against Putin for ‘blowing off’ treaties
Former Vice President Cheney on Sunday cited treaty violations by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason that the U.S. should consider “military options” in response to the invasion of Ukraine.
“I worry when we begin to address a crisis, the first thing we do is we take options off the table,” Cheney told CBS host Charlie Rose. “I don’t think the administration should do that.”
“In a sense, [the Obama administration said] no military,” he continued. “He seemed to operate that way most of the time. There are military options that don’t involve putting troops on the ground in Crimea. We could go back and reinstate the ballistic missile defense program.”
Cheney pointed out that Putin had violated commitments “like the Budapest Memorandum, when Russia, the U.S. and Britain guaranteed the borders of Ukraine in return for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons. Very important. And Putin is just blowing that off.”
“The real question is how much do you want to allow Putin to ignore those agreements — very, very important agreements — that ended the Cold War, led to the unification of Europe and the liberation of millions of people?” he asked. “I do not believe we should allow him to do that without paying a price.”
“We have a treaty obligation under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack against one is an attack against all.”
As vice president of the United States, Cheney was accused of violating United Nations Convention Against Torture with his support for waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques of alleged terrorists.
“In ratifying the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment in 1994, the Senate defined ‘cruel, inhuman and degrading’ as any practice that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th amendments,” a Washintgon Post editorial noted in 2005. “Interpreting the Cons ution as permitting waterboarding in secret prisons is, to most experts outside the administration, legally outrageous and politically untenable.”
“They want to give themselves the authority to commit human rights abuses without having to explain or justify themselves to the public, the world — or an impartial court.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/0...e+Raw+Story%29
Bush I did a deal with Gorbachev not to install missiles in the former Iron Curtain countries, then Clinton violated it.
Media Criticize Obama's Florida Trip, Ignore Bush Vacation During 2008 Invasion Of Georgia
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/09/media-criticize-obamas-florida-trip-ignore-bush/198421
doesn't look like that from what I'm reading there, definitely not a majority.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
