- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 841
- Likes
- 48
- Points
- 28
Why should I listen to someone who's only had 83 posts in 12 years?

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why should I listen to someone who's only had 83 posts in 12 years?

It looked like a coup to me. The new government isn't legitimate, and Putin is right about that.
The Russians aren't the 1930s era germans. Talk about bogus equivalents.
Why is this our problem?
Because Obama is the world's sheriff.
That's a problem . . .
Apparently, Putin is Andy, and Obama is Barney Fife...Because Obama is the world's sheriff.
Really? I thought all cops were good!
Not all cops are good (bummer that is how posters interpret my position on law enforcement). But at least law enforcement are given jurisdictions where they have authority. I guess US presidents see themselves as having jurisdiction over the the entire world.

I wasn't being serious.
And i agree.
Why is this our problem?
Two major reasons. First, we promised Ukraine that their territory would be respected if they gave up their nuclear arsenal.
Second, we are the counterbalance to Russian agression.
You're a finance kind of guy (I think) . . . does the US gain anything economically by being the counterbalance to Russian's aggression? I don't think so but I don't process information with a keen eye to economics.
"dailykos," lol...On the "Budapest Memorandum":
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...he-Budapest-Memorandum-obligate-the-U-S-to-do
Basically, the US isn't obligated to intervene militarily, so this "memorandum" is completely toothless. Send Ukraine some military equipment, but let Europe fight and die in this one.
I think many on here think I'm a cop lover as I do defend the position of police officer often in the OT section. But I don't take others or myself too seriously on here so I can joke about this stuff.
Go Police!
Go Ukraine!
Just like 56 in Hungary and 68 in Czechoslovakia, right?
"dailykos," lol...
"dailykos," lol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated as a political agreement. It refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee of intervention.[1][2][9] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[8] In the U.S. neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, nor did they believe the U.S. Senate would ratify an international treaty, so the memorandum was agreed as a political agreement.[9]
k
Denny, your position on this is embarrassing, because you're smarter than this. In 1994, we solved the problem of potental rogue nukes leaving these former Soviet territories with this treaty. This treaty exchanged those nukes for a guarantee from Russian of territorial integrity. In other words, they would give up their nuclear deterrent in exchange for a guarantee their borders would be secure.
It was the WORD of the West that mattered, not a security guarantee.
Now, the next time we want to denuclearize one or more countries (e.g., the Middle East after Iran gets the bomb and all other Arab countries nuke up), this kind of treaty won't work.
President Obama constantly stresses "smart" diplomacy over "cowboy" use of the military, but by letting Russia walk unimpeded into Crimea, he's destroyed any power diplomacy may have.
Conservative Pat Buchanan says it perfectly. I completely agree.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/behind-russian-rage
It was better in the original German.
