|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
One thing to remember about impeachment is that it only takes a house majority to do. Getting a conviction requires a vote in the senate, but impeachment itself is different. Not sure if it would be good or bad for the democrats to force a vote in the senate in the theoretical where they took the house but not senate on 2018. I get the feeling defending Trump on the senate floor is going to be a losing proposition for a fair amount of purple state senators.
Regardless, though, we can probably wait a few more months for Comey to bring a verdict.
Something occurred to me earlier. Trump has had a remarkably incident free presidency - was thinking of how he'd react to a situation like the wild life refuge of the Bundies, or another Ferguson or even a weather disaster.
|
The problem with the Chamberlain comparison is that the Sudetenland had considerable strategic importance and wasn't under threat of any other major regional instability like the way Serbia is to Montenegro. Sacrificing the Czechs (and also Austria earlier) was a terrible blunder.
I'm not saying appease Russia. I'm saying that it's questionable if Russia is in fact the biggest threat to ex-Yugoslavia's stability. If it's not, then expanding NATO moreso into that region is going to have unintended consequences.
|
On March 22 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 00:41 Gorsameth wrote:On March 22 2017 00:31 LightSpectra wrote:On March 22 2017 00:27 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:22 LightSpectra wrote:
Yeah, I'm curious about the debate over Montenegro. Anybody looking at a map can see that Russia can't invade Montenegro without going past other NATO countries' land borders, so I question what the point of it is. Seems like it's more likely to drag the US into some ex-Yugoslavian instability than it is to help us against Russian aggression. That has never stopped anyone from funding a proxy war or supporting the enemies of that nation. That was the majority of the cold war. The UK is part of NATO too and the threat of Russia invading them is about as likely as them invading the US. The UK has substantial military power, especially naval, and they have a vested interest in wanting to keep Europe stable by preventing Russian aggression. On the other hand, I really question if dragging everybody in NATO into regional instability is a worthy risk compared to Russian-funded partisans taking over such tiny country of (what I am assuming to be, but could be wrong) little strategic importance. As Neville Chamberlain how that strategy worked out the last time he tried it. Incase your history needs a refresh. 'Let them have it and maybe they will stop there' is what the world tried when Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. ...they didn't stop there. I was reading recently that a group of senior military officers in Nazi Germany formed a group called Die Schwarze Kapelle and were waiting for Britain and France to stand up to Hitler so that they could seize the moment to depose him. Senior Nazi officials would all be murdered, the old guard leadership of the army would impose martial law, war would potentially be averted. They were ready to strike at Munich but Chamberlain couldn't pull the trigger. That said, those who blame Chamberlain often don't understand the degree to which pacifism was the dominant political ideology in interwar Britain. It's difficult for our generation to really understand what the Great War did to Britain ideologically, especially because pacifism emerged from The Second World War somewhat discredited. I could write substantially more on it but basically while it's obvious in hindsight that appeasement failed it's hard for anyone alive today to understand what it meant to ask the British people to send their sons back to Flanders.
Ofcourse, the choice to go to war should never be taken lightly, and the horrors of WW1 certainly make it an even harder choice.
But the situation option we are talking about is not a war but to limit the chance of war by increase the cost of it.
By increase the umbrella of 'safe' countries under NATO.
|
On March 22 2017 00:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 00:41 Gorsameth wrote:On March 22 2017 00:31 LightSpectra wrote:On March 22 2017 00:27 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:22 LightSpectra wrote:
Yeah, I'm curious about the debate over Montenegro. Anybody looking at a map can see that Russia can't invade Montenegro without going past other NATO countries' land borders, so I question what the point of it is. Seems like it's more likely to drag the US into some ex-Yugoslavian instability than it is to help us against Russian aggression. That has never stopped anyone from funding a proxy war or supporting the enemies of that nation. That was the majority of the cold war. The UK is part of NATO too and the threat of Russia invading them is about as likely as them invading the US. The UK has substantial military power, especially naval, and they have a vested interest in wanting to keep Europe stable by preventing Russian aggression. On the other hand, I really question if dragging everybody in NATO into regional instability is a worthy risk compared to Russian-funded partisans taking over such tiny country of (what I am assuming to be, but could be wrong) little strategic importance. As Neville Chamberlain how that strategy worked out the last time he tried it. Incase your history needs a refresh. 'Let them have it and maybe they will stop there' is what the world tried when Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. ...they didn't stop there. I was reading recently that a group of senior military officers in Nazi Germany formed a group called Die Schwarze Kapelle and were waiting for Britain and France to stand up to Hitler so that they could seize the moment to depose him. Senior Nazi officials would all be murdered, the old guard leadership of the army would impose martial law, war would potentially be averted. They were ready to strike at Munich but Chamberlain couldn't pull the trigger. That said, those who blame Chamberlain often don't understand the degree to which pacifism was the dominant political ideology in interwar Britain. It's difficult for our generation to really understand what the Great War did to Britain ideologically, especially because pacifism emerged from The Second World War somewhat discredited. I could write substantially more on it but basically while it's obvious in hindsight that appeasement failed it's hard for anyone alive today to understand what it meant to ask the British people to send their sons back to Flanders. Ofcourse, the choice to go to war should never be taken lightly, and the horrors of WW1 certainly make it an even harder choice. But the situation option we are talking about is not a war but to limit the chance of war by increase the cost of it. By increase the umbrella of 'safe' countries under NATO.
The strategy of "everyone become so widely allied that war doesn't even make sense anymore" seems to actually be going insanely well.
|
On March 22 2017 00:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 00:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 22 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2017 00:41 Gorsameth wrote:On March 22 2017 00:31 LightSpectra wrote:On March 22 2017 00:27 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:22 LightSpectra wrote:
Yeah, I'm curious about the debate over Montenegro. Anybody looking at a map can see that Russia can't invade Montenegro without going past other NATO countries' land borders, so I question what the point of it is. Seems like it's more likely to drag the US into some ex-Yugoslavian instability than it is to help us against Russian aggression. That has never stopped anyone from funding a proxy war or supporting the enemies of that nation. That was the majority of the cold war. The UK is part of NATO too and the threat of Russia invading them is about as likely as them invading the US. The UK has substantial military power, especially naval, and they have a vested interest in wanting to keep Europe stable by preventing Russian aggression. On the other hand, I really question if dragging everybody in NATO into regional instability is a worthy risk compared to Russian-funded partisans taking over such tiny country of (what I am assuming to be, but could be wrong) little strategic importance. As Neville Chamberlain how that strategy worked out the last time he tried it. Incase your history needs a refresh. 'Let them have it and maybe they will stop there' is what the world tried when Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. ...they didn't stop there. I was reading recently that a group of senior military officers in Nazi Germany formed a group called Die Schwarze Kapelle and were waiting for Britain and France to stand up to Hitler so that they could seize the moment to depose him. Senior Nazi officials would all be murdered, the old guard leadership of the army would impose martial law, war would potentially be averted. They were ready to strike at Munich but Chamberlain couldn't pull the trigger. That said, those who blame Chamberlain often don't understand the degree to which pacifism was the dominant political ideology in interwar Britain. It's difficult for our generation to really understand what the Great War did to Britain ideologically, especially because pacifism emerged from The Second World War somewhat discredited. I could write substantially more on it but basically while it's obvious in hindsight that appeasement failed it's hard for anyone alive today to understand what it meant to ask the British people to send their sons back to Flanders. Ofcourse, the choice to go to war should never be taken lightly, and the horrors of WW1 certainly make it an even harder choice. But the situation option we are talking about is not a war but to limit the chance of war by increase the cost of it. By increase the umbrella of 'safe' countries under NATO. The strategy of "everyone become so widely allied that war doesn't even make sense anymore" seems to actually be going insanely well.
It worked great until some dumb country decided to drag everyone into a garbage war in the middle east and then ran away from its commitments because its congress garbage and refused to admit they fucked up.
|
While I am in favor of taking into NATO every country that Russia cares about, even I can appreciate that it's much less straightforward than situation leading to the Munich agreement and comparing those is almost an insult to pre-war Czechoslovakia. In case of Montenegro, you don't really know how loyal they will be and how they end up acting if an actual conflict arises, while Czechs in 1938 were a unified nation essentially waiting with arms in their hands to go fight the imminent threat.
|
On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference.
I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation":
From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided
Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression?
|
On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": Show nested quote +From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression?
Couldn't they just immigrate to Russia, rather than take a large part of Ukraine with them and its natural resources? Last I checked there was a pretty large port in Crimea too. Is it repression because they can't take the port with them to Russia?
|
On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": Show nested quote +From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression?
So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it?
|
On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it?
Pretty sure we settled that debate with one of the larger wars in history.
|
On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it?
The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico.
|
United States44302 Posts
On March 22 2017 01:04 opisska wrote:
While I am in favor of taking into NATO every country that Russia cares about, even I can appreciate that it's much less straightforward than situation leading to the Munich agreement and comparing those is almost an insult to pre-war Czechoslovakia. In case of Montenegro, you don't really know how loyal they will be and how they end up acting if an actual conflict arises, while Czechs in 1938 were a unified nation essentially waiting with arms in their hands to go fight the imminent threat.
They were stabbed in the front. The 1930s really were a tragedy. 
France kept sending letters to Britain saying "okay, we're doing this, we're going to declare war" and Britain kept sending letters back saying "I don't know about that" with France replying "okay but previously you said that if either one of us unilaterally declared war on Germany for this kind of shit the other would automatically back them so we're gonna draw the line here and you're with us anyway so we're good, right?" and Britain replying "oh yeah, that's definitely a thing we said" and Hitler's generals waiting to depose him for causing a general war and Mussolini ready to join Britain and France.
It's like watching a disaster movie in slow motion where the disaster keeps getting worse and worse and all the heroes die.
|
On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it?
I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation and a lot of protesting on all sides with potential violence.
But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years.
The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... but that is also no comparison.
Honestly, I'm just glad there was no violence in Crimea. Still hasn't been as far as I know. I'm fairly certain that there would be massive protests if the international community forced them to part of Ukraine again.
|
No other country in the world allocates powers between states and the federal government the way the US does, so I don't think any of these hypotheticals work to be honest.
|
On March 22 2017 01:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:04 opisska wrote:
While I am in favor of taking into NATO every country that Russia cares about, even I can appreciate that it's much less straightforward than situation leading to the Munich agreement and comparing those is almost an insult to pre-war Czechoslovakia. In case of Montenegro, you don't really know how loyal they will be and how they end up acting if an actual conflict arises, while Czechs in 1938 were a unified nation essentially waiting with arms in their hands to go fight the imminent threat. They were stabbed in the front. The 1930s really were a tragedy. France kept sending letters to Britain saying "okay, we're doing this, we're going to declare war" and Britain kept sending letters back saying "I don't know about that" with France replying "okay but previously you said that if either one of us unilaterally declared war on Germany for this kind of shit the other would automatically back them so we're gonna draw the line here and you're with us anyway so we're good, right?" and Britain replying "oh yeah, that's definitely a thing we said" and Hitler's generals waiting to depose him for causing a general war and Mussolini ready to join Britain and France. It's like watching a disaster movie in slow motion where the disaster keeps getting worse and worse and all the heroes die.
It's actually hard to judge even from all those years of distance. Sure, if the Hitler-deposing plot worked, there would be nothing to talk about. But in the probably more realistic scenario, where the powers just say no and Hitler says screw you and invades Czechoslovakia right away, the results would have been brutal.
Even if Czechoslovakia was allowed defend itself, it would surely have fallen. We had a great setup against then-regular ground-based attacks but the armored fighting vehicles that the Germans had would have breached it quite swiftly. The terrain and further inland defensive lines could have been be still helpful to incur some serious losses ... but then you have to take into account the Luftwaffe to which we had no real answer at all. The problem is that Germany was next door, so even if France and UK were committed to immediate retaliation, we would have been done by their arrival.
|
On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit...
What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing?
We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue.
|
United States44302 Posts
On March 22 2017 01:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? The better example would be Mexicans in the American Southwest rebelling to rejoin Mexico.
I'd let them if they represented popular opinion and were not simply a proxy for a foreign power. The United Kingdom was right to grant dominion status to Southern Ireland and was right to use the army to fight the IRA in Northern Ireland.
|
On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue.
To turn your previous argument against you (or was that KwarK? I can't tell you guys apart for some reason): couldn't that 30% just emigrate out of the state that left the US?
Also, even if it's just 70% of the people in a particular state wanting to leave, there's still more outside that particular state who would essentially be against it if it was congress that didn't allow the secession. That's basically tyranny of the majority...
|
On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it?
Only if Spain also took Mississippi and Alabama too~
|
On March 22 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 01:18 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 01:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 22 2017 01:05 a_flayer wrote:On March 22 2017 00:42 Plansix wrote:On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote:
Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit.
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. I just don't understand why people are so keen on ignoring the will of the Crimean people in this regard. Look at these polls even before they were "under the threat of military occupation": From WikipediaUNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200: 2009 Q3 - 70% Yes, 14% no, 16% undecided Yes, the Crimean Republic should have gone through Ukraine to get this done, rather than just teaming up with Russia on their own accord. But at the same time, Ukraine was hardly going to be cooperative in this matter, especially considering the way they reacted to the protests of people in the south and east after the rebellion. Should their government be allowed to just impose their will on a minority in their country? Isn't that oppression? So if I started a rebellion in FL for Spain to take us back with 70% FL residents backing, will the US allow it? I think California - or Florida, I guess - might be allowed to separate from the US if there was 70% support for doing so within the state, after a long and arduous negotiation. But it is incredibly hard to compare these situations. It is not as if Crimea has always been solidly part of Ukraine. It's been in and out of Russia/Soviet Union like half a dozen times in the past 100 years. The EU let Britain go with just 52% of its population showing support for Brexit... What about the 30% who is super into still being US citizens and enjoying all the rights of travel and the US economy? Those people get fucked because 70% decide they have had enough with this whole Nation of States thing? We do not live by tyranny of the majority in the US. We are a nation of laws and exiting the Union is not an option. States cannot leave the US based on a majority of people want it. We didn't get to leave the British Empire without a war. The Civil War took place over this very issue.
Some British colonies gained sovereignty without shooting British people.
Just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
