US puts more sanctions on Russia - Do you agree with this?

Pa2k · 28-04-2014 03:38PM #1

The US have been invading and occupying country's with decades with no repercussions, is the trouble over Ukraine because it hurts there personal interests or are they genuinely trying to help? Could this spark World War 3 or is it too late already?

I Heart Internet · 28-04-2014 03:41PM

Putin is a mad man. He needs to be kept in his box. Sanctions and diplomacy are the only way of doing that without escalating things further.

Problem is, it is Putin's back-yard. As much as US/EU would like to help Ukraine protect itself, Putin cares very little for bloodshed or loss of life there if he can get the bragging rights he want.

SEPT 23 1989 · 28-04-2014 03:43PM

I am not anti-American but what the hell has this got to do with America anyway?

I Heart Internet · 28-04-2014 03:45PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I am not anti-American but what the hell has this got to do with America anyway?

The alternative viewpoint is to say only countries directly involved have an interest in the outcome of this. That's surely not true?

Jonny7 · 28-04-2014 03:46PM

Of course not, the international community should completely back down and allow Russia take whatever actions to obviously help the Ukrainian people - including snarfing Crimea, massing a huge army on the border and supporting heavily armed separatists.. whom, let's face it, wouldn't last 5 seconds if they were trying to separate from Moscow (Chechnya, Georgia, etc)

Adamantium · 28-04-2014 03:47PM

If World War 3 had any chance of happening, you wouldn't have enough time to post this before the first launches. Its all automatic

Over in a flash.

I Heart Internet · 28-04-2014 03:50PM

Adamantium wrote: »

If World War 3 had any chance of happening, you wouldn't have enough time to post this before the first launches. Its all automatic

Over in a flash.

Pfffffft!

Someone's obviously misplaced his iodine pills.

wes · 28-04-2014 03:51PM

Yes, they are right to do so, even if it is a breathtaking example of hypocrisy, seeing as, when a US client does the exact same things, they actively protect them doing so.

Franticfrank · 28-04-2014 03:52PM

Pa2k wrote: »

The US have been invading and occupying country's with decades with no repercussions

Occupying? The last I heard the U.S. were no longer occupying Vietnam and Iraq.

c_man · 28-04-2014 03:53PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I am not anti-American but what the hell has this got to do with America anyway?

America was one of the countries which agreed to respect the borders of the Ukraine when they were unilaterally giving up their Soviet nuclear arsenal. Add to that American NATO commitments to nervous regional bordering countries and I think it's pretty obvious why they're involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an "American! **** yeah!" type. I see American participation here as being on a footing with their presence in the MidEast peace talks, Taiwan/China etc. Not surprising in the slightest.

I Heart Internet · 28-04-2014 03:53PM

wes wrote: »

Yes, they are right to do so, even if it is a breathtaking example of hypocrisy, seeing as, when a US client does the exact same things, they actively protect them doing so.

Do they? I'm not being a smart-arse here...but what are the examples? Genuine question.

wes · 28-04-2014 03:55PM

Franticfrank wrote: »

Occupying? The last I heard the U.S. were no longer occupying Vietnam and Iraq.

So? The US has not repudiated there past behavior by lets say trying Geogre Bush/Dick Cheney etc for war crimes. It is fair to point out that the US will engage in such behavior like Russia, when it suits there interests.

wes · 28-04-2014 03:56PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Do they? I'm not being a smart-arse here...but what are the examples? Genuine question.

I rather not drag the thread off topic, hence why I made a veiled reference, but suffice to say, you can probably Google what US client I am talking about.

I agree Russia should have sanctions put on them, but lets not pretend that the US has issues with such a thing, when its one of there clients doing the same thing. IMHO, opponents to this, can rightly point out the hypocrisy.

I Heart Internet · 28-04-2014 03:59PM

wes wrote: »

I rather not drag the thread off topic, hence why I made a veiled reference, but suffice to say, you can probably Google what US client I am talking about.

OK - I think I know what you're referring to. A county beginning with I but not so much with the pasta? OK, thanks.

Franticfrank · 28-04-2014 04:02PM

wes wrote: »

So? The US has not repudiated there past behavior by lets say trying Geogre Bush/Dick Cheney etc for war crimes. It is fair to point out that the US will engage in such behavior like Russia, when it suits there interests.

You make a valid point but at least they left in the end and gave the country back to the Iraqis. Don't expect to see the Russians withdrawing from the Crimea anytime in the future.

ScumLord · 28-04-2014 04:05PM

Pa2k wrote: »

The US have been invading and occupying country's with decades with no repercussions,

What about 9-11? There have been repercussions, just because they're not obvious military actions doesn't mean there aren't consequences, there are always consequences.

wes · 28-04-2014 04:17PM

Franticfrank wrote: »

You make a valid point but at least they left in the end and gave the country back to the Iraqis. Don't expect to see the Russians withdrawing from the Crimea anytime in the future.

Yes, that is a fair difference to point out, but both actions come from the same place, of 2 states acting in what they see as there best interests.

Pa2k · 28-04-2014 04:32PM

ScumLord wrote: »

What about 9-11? There have been repercussions, just because they're not obvious military actions doesn't mean there aren't consequences, there are always consequences.

That wasn't the US having sanctions brought against them

MJ23 · 28-04-2014 04:34PM

What I don't understand is, why are the Americans involved, and why do they think they're the boss?

Jonny7 · 28-04-2014 04:43PM

wes wrote: »

Yes, that is a fair difference to point out, but both actions come from the same place, of 2 states acting in what they see as there best interests.

As disgusting as the Iraq war was - Obama did not take that decision, so I'm not sure what bearing it has on him passing sanctions on Russia in the current crisis

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 05:17PM

MJ23 wrote: »

What I don't understand is, why are the Americans involved, and why do they think they're the boss?

Hmmmm lets Google the word NATO...

BuilderPlumber · 28-04-2014 05:34PM

No, I don't agree with this stupidity. After all the mistakes of the last 10 years, George W Bush is obviously still the real president of America.

The Iraq war lead to the complete breakdown of a country in the Middle East, destabilised the whole region, plunged the world into the worst recession since the Great Depression, and encouraged others to follow the same lead (Israel and now Russia).

Russia may or may not be right to go into Eastern Ukraine. Whatever way, they have more of an argument to go in there than GWB's regime ever did. The US needs to get rid of the lobby groups and arms industry people who really control it and stay out of these things. US/EU involvement here makes matters worse not better.

Personally, I can only see one viable solution wrt Ukraine: allow it to break up in two or at least have a federal republic structure. The two halves of the country want very different things so the US, EU and Russia should work together to do what is right for Ukraine and NOT themselves!

In all reality, there are countries that do need to split as it is for the best. For example, West and North Iran should ditch the East of that country and allow the East to live in Voodooland while the West and North could go down the more secular road. At present, I feel many modern Iranians are living in fear of compromising too much to voodooist peasants in the East (these guys are largely non-Persian and thus not really part of the Iranian nation anyway) and fear terrorist attacks from them if they don't rather than giving these gangsters a homeland in return for not attacking Tehran or other cities. Iraq probably should never have existed as the entity it did as it is a mix of Arab and Kurd. Perhaps if Kurdistan was there in the North all along, the history of Iraq would have been different if Iraq was just the south of the entity.

Czechoslovakia broke up very peacefully of course. But Czech Republic does far better than Slovakia. I guess the same would be for all the above examples. One side would be richer than the other. Perhaps with Ukraine: the East could become allied to Russia and the West to the EU? Yugoslavia was the worst breakup of a country ever. Mainly due to the fact that the central government at the time did not want this and wanted to control it 100%. I fear Ukraine could well be the worst ethnic warfare in Europe since that unfortunate conflict.

Rhys Essien · 28-04-2014 05:37PM

MJ23 wrote: »

What I don't understand is, why are the Americans involved, and why do they think they're the boss?

Two reasons straight away,

Russia stopped America from attacking Syria
Russia gave amnesty to Edward Snowdon

Im sure both got America's blood boiling.

fran17 · 28-04-2014 05:40PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hmmmm lets Google the word NATO...

but Ukraine is not in nato right?

Jonny7 · 28-04-2014 05:42PM

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Two reasons straight away,

Russia stopped America from attacking Syria
Russia gave amnesty to Edward Snowdon

Im sure both got America's blood boiling.

Yeah and America has got it's mates Italy, France, Germany, Canada, Britain, France and Japan to gang up on Russia..

because that's how simple it is

scamalert · 28-04-2014 05:45PM

yeah and maybe British should take over the Ireland,given some peoples attitudes here,wonder how long would it take for them 10min between hour before full occupation ? fact is that Russia is largest country on the map but if taken closer look besides couple big cities 90% of the country if green full of resources that they dont bother to extract,not to mention outside cities people still live 20y behind and yet Russia manages to play balls with other countries,while ireland sent them potatoes couple years back bit of a joke having biggest country with most resources and being pi$$ broke because some nut case wants to play war while rest of the country is living decade behind.

wes · 28-04-2014 05:55PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

As disgusting as the Iraq war was - Obama did not take that decision, so I'm not sure what bearing it has on him passing sanctions on Russia in the current crisis

The fact that none of the perpetrators were not put on trial, being one major example. No one put on trial for torture etc. Yes, Obama was against the Iraq war, but the fact that he didn't do anything about those behind it and torture etc, doesn't speak well to his Administration and there handling of there own nations wrong doing. The fact nothing was done, show that that they clearly didn't see it as being all that wrong. If your not willing to clean up your own house, people won't take you serious when you complain about someone else house.

Regardless of Iraq, I still believe hypocrisy aside the US are right to sanction Russia.

Rhys Essien · 28-04-2014 06:23PM

Is it just the US and EU putting the sanctions on Russia?.Can Russia get by,trading with the Middle East,Africa,India and China?.

Will there not be big EU demand for Russian oil and gas in 6 months time?

What would happen if Russia,Iran,China etc started to trade oil in another currency to the dollar?.

Santa Cruz · 28-04-2014 06:28PM

Franticfrank wrote: »

You make a valid point but at least they left in the end and gave the country back to the Iraqis. Don't expect to see the Russians withdrawing from the Crimea anytime in the future.

Why should they? Crimea is Russian and the people resident in Crimea want to be under Russian rule.

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 06:42PM

fran17 wrote: »

but Ukraine is not in nato right?

Countries around it are and one of the reasons the Ukraine gave up its Nuclear weapons, was guaranteed protection.

Jonny7 · 28-04-2014 06:47PM

wes wrote: »

The fact that none of the perpetrators were not put on trial, being one major example. No one put on trial for torture etc. Yes, Obama was against the Iraq war, but the fact that he didn't do anything about those behind it and torture etc, doesn't speak well to his Administration and there handling of there own nations wrong doing. The fact nothing was done, show that that they clearly didn't see it as being all that wrong. If your not willing to clean up your own house, people won't take you serious when you complain about someone else house.

Has Putin prosecuted any of his politicians or soldiers for torture and crimes during Chechnya? what about Sarcowzy/Hollande during any of it's escapades in Ivory coast, Mali or CAR? India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Venezuela and Columbia, the list is endless, and that's just from the last decade or two

It's a bit strange that Obama gets singled out for not prosecuting the administration before him.. in a perfect world perhaps, but on a realistic international level, that's opening up a real pandora's box

US puts more sanctions on Russia - Do you agree with this?

Comments