Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby charlie beard » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:27 pm

"If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara desert,
in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand"
charlie beard
hunter
 
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:13 am
Location: West Central IL.


Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby DuckinFool » Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:00 pm

Not with our GirlyBoy In Chief we have currently.
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby don novicki » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:48 am

This is a Russian/European problem and we need to stay the heck out of it. We are not: "Team America World Police"....... :mad:
don novicki
hunter
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:16 am

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby TomKat » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:09 am

This is insane. We are not the world police. Why do we still guard South Korea? Where does it end?
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11497
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:21 am

This is NOT about enforcing international law.

This is about protecting America for so many reasons.

When America signs a treat, is it meaningless?

Are we a liar who cannot be counted on to keep her word? For those that get upset that Obama and others ignore the Constitution as just a meaningless piece of paper, why do you get to do the same thing with our treaties. Like them or not, we agreed to them. Is it the rule of law or rule of whatever I want and screw any stupid piece of paper (i..e., the law) that says I can't do what I want.

As far as where will this end. The answer is simple. Where will Russia and China stop?

When will they be satisfied. History says they will be satisfied at the same point that Germany and Japan would have stopped if they had not been stopped. There are many other historical examples that suggest the same. Their economies are parasitic. They cannot stop or they will consume themselves, so the disease must spread.

We are asking the wrong question.

Would Russia go to war with the U.S. over Latvia?

The answer is NO. Since Russia made it clear in Georgia and the Ukraine that they plan to expand, we need to get ahead of the curve. They would have never crossed the Ukrainian border if manned by a mixed U.S./Ukrainian forces. It's a small investment to reduce the risk of a big war down the road because the question is simple, if we don't stop them there, where will we stop them?

The other alternative, but I don't prefer it is to simply give every one of these little countries nuclear weapons and give up control of a large part of our future and hope for the best.

If you were Latvia, what would you do if the U.S. said sorry, remember when we signed that treaty, well sorry, we are America, when we say if you like our treaties, you can keep them means nothing because we are manipulative liars that do not keep our word so Image

What would any other country do if after that we said, don't worry about what we did to Latvia, we really do have your back? You can trust us, we abide by the treaties and agreements we make, just don't ask Latvia, or ... We are not liars because :huh:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby TomKat » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:27 am

I don't disagree with you about signing treaties. But as you know, Dog Crap Theory addresses the piss poor US foreign policy that has been in place over the years.

We need to quit signing treaties, quit starting wars, and quit wasting money and lives in far flung engagements that we have no business involving our selfs in.

The Constitution says to provide for the Common Defense, not empire building or police work.

The bible is pretty much dead set against war as well.

Wanna know what really matters to the overlords of Capitalism?

Money and profits. With no new wars or aggression, there is no need for increasing the defense budget.

The love of treaties and police work is breaking this country. We simply cannot afford to keep wasting money.

Ok Spinner, throw a graph or a chart at me. Better yet, win me over with a bible verse.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11497
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:15 am

TomKat wrote:The Constitution says to provide for the Common Defense, not empire building or police work.

This is Common Defense.

It is not empire building. We are not taking over Latvia or anything that would indicate that this is the case.

It is not police work. We are not enforcing some law, written or unwritten.

You may disagree with the tactic used to defend the U.S., but it is clearly intended as Common Defense.

Nothing in the Constitution says that there are tactics are limited to meeting our enemies at our door step, that it cannot be preemptive, that it cannot be done by the forward projection of power, nor does it limit any particular tactic or strategy.

TomKat wrote:The bible is pretty much dead set against war as well.
:huh:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%206&version=KJV
2 And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.

3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.


TomKat wrote:Money and profits. With no new wars or aggression, there is no need for increasing the defense budget.

That's old school thinking. The way to rip off the taxpayers is far more diverse. The farmers get 10's of billions through food stamps and fat American kids and horrible ethanol mandates, the corporations get 10's of bills through "green" mandates and subsidies where the only thing green about them is the cash that goes in the pockets of the corporations.

Much of the military budget is health care and pensions. It's becoming another government mismanaged dependency program as opposed to pay for service compensation. Which leads to the another big scam is the huge handouts to the health care and insurance industry.

This is the 21st century. There is far more money to be made in big government than just the old unnecessary military spending.

Image
And that's just the spending. There is a lot more to be made through regulations and it is much easier to get in place and hide from public views.

TomKat wrote:The love of treaties and police work is breaking this country. We simply cannot afford to keep wasting money.
It is not the 20% that is spent on military that is breaking us. Not even close. It is the social welfare programs. It is the "green" regulations. It is all the centralization of power into the hands of the Executive Branch of the federal government and all the unelected political partisan hacks that are in these positions doing the bidding of their party and it's patrons.

TomKat wrote:Ok Spinner, throw a graph or a chart at me. Better yet, win me over with a bible verse.
Done and done :thumbsup:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby TomKat » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:58 am

Thank you brother. I appreciate your intellect and time spent on this.

"Some men you just can't reach."
Cool Hand Luke

I would be one of those men. Nice debate and interesting POV.

I am gonna stick with my Dog Crap theory and old school way of thinking.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11497
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:19 am

It's a tough question.

Personally, I believe that there is a huge value in standing by your word.

This means two things. Promise very little and live by the promises you make.

Of course, it's always a lot easier to promise a lot and not live by those promise.

Whether in life or national defense, I just think this is so important in the long run. Sure in the short run, making promises you cannot or will not keep and breaking promises made in the past is the easy way. In the long run, it is the very hard and destructive way. And when it is not possible to live up to your promises, apologize sincerely and profusely as well as do NOT continue to make false promises.

As far as the particular tactic of defending Latvia, etc. as a way to wall off Russia. I do agree with the tactic. I'd much prefer the military interface and friction point between the U.S. and Russia to be on the Russian border and not on the U.S. border. Same with the Chinese. Same with any future enemy. Would you prefer the military tensions on their border or ours? For so many reasons, it just seems a far better way to defend our country. It gives us a lot more margin for error than if the tension is on our border.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby TomKat » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:24 am

I don't want to fight with any other country. The only one who has ever attacked us in modern times was Japan. They regretted that later.

Why are we defending the border of Latvia when we cant secure our own borders? Shouldn't we take care of our own business first?
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11497
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:52 am

Russia's present behavior is very reminicent of German behavior prior to WWII. We need to nip this in the bud right now. Unfortunately we may well be headed for WW III with a complete dip crap in charge.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:01 am

TomKat wrote:I don't want to fight with any other country.
Me either, so we agree 100% on that. So now it is just a question of the best way to avoid that.

However, if I do get forced to fight. I want to fight on my terms and I want a small fight and not a large fight and I sure as hell want it to be in their backyard or in their house and not in mine.

TomKat wrote:The only one who has ever attacked us in modern times was Japan.

This is simply NOT true.

The German's were sinking American ships before Pearl Harbor.

The attacks on 9/11/01 apparently does not count for some reason :huh:

There have been pirate attacks. They too count, just like they did before modern times when President Jefferson took military action on foreign soil.

Unless you believe U.S. policy should be that any American not on American soil is fair game, we have been attacked many times in modern times. The founders did not believe this based on their actions.

You also have to believe that attacks by organizations like Al Qaeda are nothing more than criminal acts which would preclude the use of a military response. We could not send in the U.S. military to take out Timothy McVeigh and any suspected co-conspirators. If not an attack, then we could not have done the same against bin Laden.

My far bigger concern than Russia is Iran or others like them. I am not 100% certain that they are not and will not remain a nation that is not run by a suicidal madman willing to accept death in exchange for a first nuclear strike in Manhattan or Chicago or Los Angeles or DC or Honolulu or Anchorage or many other cities or multiple cities simultaneously.

While we can make great strides in eliminating the incentive for illegally immigrating to the U.S., we can never secure our massive land and ocean borders against a modern nuclear device delivered by a suicidal mad man. Hell, all they would have to do is fly into many U.S. airports which is where most people arrive out our borders and not the physical borders of our nation. So what if they get stopped at customs in NYC or Chicago?

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby Gunnysway » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:08 am

TomKat wrote:I don't want to fight with any other country. The only one who has ever attacked us in modern times was Japan. They regretted that later.

Why are we defending the border of Latvia when we cant secure our own borders? Shouldn't we take care of our own business first?




^^THIS^^

I think NATO should be the lead on this sort of conflict. Why should the U.S. bang the war drum, when we pay millions to NATO for this "service"?

If the Europeans aren't worried, why should we be?

Send the blue helmets into Ukraine and Georgia, and line them up on the borders. Let Russia deal with the world police. Engage in bettering our relationship with China. Ramp up talk about the U.S. sending fuels to Europe and crush the Russian economy like an empty vodka bottle...

Apparently Putin hasn't seen Rocky IV

Rocky 4.jpg
Rocky 4.jpg (7.6 KiB) Viewed 302 times
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:24 am

Gunnysway wrote:I think NATO should be the lead on this sort of conflict.
We are NATO. Let's not pretend something is not true. Do you think sending in the French would help?

Gunnysway wrote:Send the blue helmets into Ukraine and Georgia, and line them up on the borders.
But the blue helmets are the U.N. and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Russians would veto this. The Russians are part of the U.N. and have a veto on the security council.

Gunnysway wrote:Engage in bettering our relationship with China.

Well Obama's on that

Image

But I think this is only slightly more likely to work as bettering our relationship with Russia.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby KAhunter » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:29 am

ScaupHunter wrote:Russia's present behavior is very reminicent of German behavior prior to WWII. We need to nip this in the bud right now. Unfortunately we may well be headed for WW III with a complete dip crap in charge.


I have been thinking this all along. This is eerily similar to 1930's Germany. Russia fell apart and is now coming back into strength (germany after treaty of versailles and ww1) and is starting to make land grabs ( germany - Czechoslovakia) and push around its power. In 1938 Britich PM Chamberlain thought he had secured "peace for our time" with the Munich Agreement, but we all now how well it went after that. You cant appease a bully. We all know that. You have to fight him and earn his respect. You dont have to destroy him, just beat him so he wont do it again. I dont think anyone sees the USA as someone who will push back very hard right now.

History repeats itself. We need to do something with this issue.

And I agree that we dont need to be the worlds police, but a major nation and super power making pretty bold movements is much different than intervening in syria or somewhere else.
"If you have to be crazy to be a duck hunter, i dont wish to be sane" Robert Ruark

Its always duck season, there is just a long break from february to september.
KAhunter
hunter
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:11 am

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:44 am

Want a bit deeper look into what is coming? Look at the economies of the US and the world prior to both world wars. Look at what major nations do when they see a major enemy nations economy collapsing. Look at the bigger picture. The politicians could not have planned this better to encourage Russian expansion if they tried. The only problem is that I believe they are actually to stupid to have planned it all. They are just repeating histories mistakes.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:48 am

KAhunter wrote:You cant appease a bully. We all know that. You have to fight him and earn his respect. You dont have to destroy him, just beat him so he wont do it again. I dont think anyone sees the USA as someone who will push back very hard right now.

The problem is that Obama and those like him are not clever nor creative. They lack much if any foresight, but mostly react to events. They are over educated simpletons.

We have already established that nobody desires war with Russia. Not a little war today over Latvia nor a big war in the future.

We need to be clever, creative, and act with foresight.

Ukraine was such an obvious thing we saw coming for years. Yet Obama did nothing, so I hold out little hope for this administration. They are liberals. They are not problem solvers.

We need to cleverly and creatively undermine Putin on all fronts big and small.

Putin clearly has issues with his masculinity, which is why we always see him doing all kinds of silly things often half-naked. So why not have a disinformation campaign in Russia that mocks his virility. People nearly always tip their hands about their insecurities and Putin seems very insecure. Obama could get caught in a hot mic joking about Putin's limp little problem.

Russia has real economic problems. Mock Putin for this as well.

Undermine Russia's gas and oil, by expanding ours AND every other country we can help. What a great way to work with Mexico to build a robust energy market there? It helps with a lot of issues we have here.

Militarily, we need to do a lot more training with our NATO allies on the Russian border and other cooperative activities with our allies. We also need to push our NATO allies to live up to their end of the treaty which includes spending more on their own defense than most currently are.

A comprehensive approach that is clever, creative, with foresight. Never going to happen. Liberals don't even know what these words are. They think everything they do is by definition a comprehensive solution that is clever, creative, with great forsight, even when it fails for such obvious reasons.

ScaupHunter wrote:The only problem is that I believe they are actually to stupid to have planned it all.
I have no doubt of it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby Gunnysway » Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:02 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Gunnysway wrote:I think NATO should be the lead on this sort of conflict.
We are NATO. Let's not pretend something is not true. Do you think sending in the French would help?

Not by themselves... but NATO consists of 28 (27 not including Russia) that could carry some weight on this issue if they all stood together

Gunnysway wrote:Send the blue helmets into Ukraine and Georgia, and line them up on the borders.
But the blue helmets are the U.N. and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Russians would veto this. The Russians are part of the U.N. and have a veto on the security council.

Yes... but, the United States as well as like-minded nations in the West and Middle East should consider calling for Russia's suspension from the U.N.’s most democratic and representative organ, the General Assembly (UNGA), where all 193 U.N. member states normally get one vote. Such an act would entail zero material costs, avoid veto authority and be a critical step toward alleviating the situation.

In particular, Russia suspension would act to further isolate Putin. Most important, Russia's suspension would unambiguously express the international community’s collective disgust with the actions of Putin, while providing a new form of leverage to compel Russia’s government to change course.

There is U.N. precedent for such drastic action, and it happened more than 30 years ago. Citing apartheid, a majority of the nine-member U.N. Credentials Committee – which confirms the credentials of U.N. delegations – and a supermajority of the General Assembly voted to suspend South Africa’s participation in the UNGA in 1974.


(This answer ^^^ has been plagiarized, and country's name changed to Russia because I'm not smart enough to figure this mess out on my own...) Precedence can be a bitch though...



Gunnysway wrote:Engage in bettering our relationship with China.

Well Obama's on that

Image

But I think this is only slightly more likely to work as bettering our relationship with Russia.
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:48 pm

Gunnysway wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Gunnysway wrote:I think NATO should be the lead on this sort of conflict.
We are NATO. Let's not pretend something is not true. Do you think sending in the French would help?

Not by themselves... but NATO consists of 28 (27 not including Russia) that could carry some weight on this issue if they all stood together

Russia is not and never was part of the NATO. They were part of the Warsaw Pact, granted arguably the only voluntary member given that all the Pact members joined NATO as soon as possible so they are never forced back into the old Warsaw Pact alliance.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm


Gunnysway wrote:Send the blue helmets into Ukraine and Georgia, and line them up on the borders.
But the blue helmets are the U.N. and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Russians would veto this. The Russians are part of the U.N. and have a veto on the security council.

Yes... but, the United States as well as like-minded nations in the West and Middle East should consider calling for Russia's suspension from the U.N.’s most democratic and representative organ, the General Assembly (UNGA), where all 193 U.N. member states normally get one vote. Such an act would entail zero material costs, avoid veto authority and be a critical step toward alleviating the situation.

In particular, Russia suspension would act to further isolate Putin. Most important, Russia's suspension would unambiguously express the international community’s collective disgust with the actions of Putin, while providing a new form of leverage to compel Russia’s government to change course.

There is U.N. precedent for such drastic action, and it happened more than 30 years ago. Citing apartheid, a majority of the nine-member U.N. Credentials Committee – which confirms the credentials of U.N. delegations – and a supermajority of the General Assembly voted to suspend South Africa’s participation in the UNGA in 1974.


I'd bet the U.N. suspends the U.S. before they suspend Russia. The U.N. is a worthless political group whose primary purpose is to protect the world's dictators from criticism. I hope this was a joke because it is very funny. But maybe you are right and we can join with our like-minded countries in the Middle East, Israel.

There are 193 members of the U.N. very few of them are democratic so how can the General Assembly really be that Democratic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_members
If we got serious about enforcing standards in the U.N., we'd probably end up calling it the G-7, maybe NATO. It surely wouldn't be an organization that includes North Korea, all the repressive Islamist regimes, China and their horrible human rights, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and other screwed up African nations, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Dark Green are Democracies. Green sort of. Everything else, not so much.
Image


(This answer ^^^ has been plagiarized, and country's name changed to Russia because I'm not smart enough to figure this mess out on my own...) Precedence can be a bitch though...



Gunnysway wrote:Engage in bettering our relationship with China.

Well Obama's on that

Image

But I think this is only slightly more likely to work as bettering our relationship with Russia.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby Gunnysway » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:51 pm

Got it... so let's do nothing.
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3326
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:23 pm

Gunnysway wrote:Got it... so let's do nothing.

Did I say that?

I think I pretty clearly said we should do a lot.

While I don't know what exactly in detail that entails since I am not an expert nor privy to the relevant classified material that we have, I made some broad general ideas that seem very obvious.

One of them is in line with what Biden is doing and what triggered this thread.

Sweeping through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania this week, Joe Biden reassured all three that the United States' commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty remains "solemn" and "iron clad."


However, from the administration that has blatantly and repeatedly lied to get what they want, everything they say is just words. They need to be followed up with actions. Not acts of war, but actions that show we are not doing nothing in any of its many forms one of the biggest is going to the U.N.

A great read and very relevant.
Varieties of Nothing
by Thomas Sowell
Doing nothing might seem to be simple and easy. But there are many varieties of nothing, and some kinds of nothing can get very elaborate and complex.


However, thanks to the United Nations, there is a place where political leaders can go to do nothing, with a flurry of highly visible activity-- and the media will cover it in detail, with a straight face, so that people will think that something is actually being done.

There may be televised statements and counter-statements-- passionate debate among people wearing exotic apparel from different nations, all in an impressive, photogenic setting. U.N. resolutions may be voted upon and published to the world. It can be some of the best nothing that money can buy.

Even when United Nations resolutions contain lofty and ringing phrases about the "concerns" of "the international community" or invoke "world opinion"-- or perhaps even warn of "grave consequences"-- none of this is likely to lead any country to do anything that it would not have done otherwise.


Certainly doing nothing will not stop them-- not even elaborate diplomatic nothing or even presidential international speech-making nothing.


Obama is a master of looking as if he is doing something while in reality he is doing nothing. Granted that is usually far better than when he actually does something. However, in this case, looking as if you are doing something while doing nothing will not cut it. We must do something and not just look like we are and it must be something that is effective. This is why I have very little hope. Obama has never in his life been forced to learn how to do things effectively. He has mastered doing nothing and achieved great personal fortune and power by doing so. He will once again vote present and others will determine the path while he claims credit for the good that comes and deny responsibility for the bad that comes.

The original post asked this question
Is America really prepared to fight all of these wars that we are obligated by treaty to fight?

Not with Obama at the helm, but we damn sure better be. Not with the necessary standing arms, but with the plans on how we will respond if God forbid the need arises. And while we are doing that, we should be working even harder to ensure none of these wars become necessary. That means we must do something right now to ensure that the need not arise to go to war with Russia. Empty threats will do exactly the opposite. I say make no threats, just act. Send troops to Latvia as a military exercise and install a permanent training base in Latvia near the Russia border. Deny it has anything to do with Russia, just as Putin denied any plans to annex Crimea. No words directed at Russia. Ignore that worthless, but dangerous piece of dogshit.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:44 pm

This last posting covers exactly why we are on a crash course with WW III. We have a do nothing idiot and sub idiot in charge of the US that make a lot of noise and do nothing. We have our heads in the sand yet again and it will take another world war to wake us up. Frankly this is what happens when you let liberal idiots run things. They feel good and encourage the crack pots and dicatators to run amok. Bush was not at fault for 9-11 Clinton was. Why? He made us look weak and vunerable. The enemy assumed they could pull it off unscathed and went for it. Bush was the wrong guy to play that game with. If they had done it under Clinton it would have been swept under the rug as best possible and we would have never gone to war. Toss a few missiles in there and call it good was the answer under Clinton.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:59 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:If they had done it under Clinton it would have been swept under the rug as best possible and we would have never gone to war.
:fingerpt:

We would have cruise missiled the hell out of a lot of places. Aspirin factories the world over would have been in grave danger.

It would have been a very elaborate form of nothing accompanied by the world's most expensive fireworks show. Clinton had already attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan for the same reasons as Bush to no effect.

Clinton was very quick to pull the trigger when politics dictated it. It was never backed up with a military strategy of any kind,even one you thought was a bad strategy. Much like Obama's whack-a-jihadi approach, it would have looked good, but just like moles, no matter how many you whack, there are always more to whack unless you get in their tunnels and change the environment that supports them and now that Obama has walked away from the jihadi tunnels and totally relies on whack-a-jihadi, we see how that worked in Bengazi. They killed an ambassador (another direct attack on the U.S.) without fear of military reprisal. Clinton would have launched far more missile and dropped far more bombs, but it would have been lacking of a strategy to fundamentally change the problem for the better.





BTW, this is what being the world's police looks like.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby don novicki » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:37 pm

N. Korea goes ahead and builds and tests a nuclear bomb and tries to develop an ICBM capability, and we do what..............nothing.

Pakistan, who used U.S. money to develop, build, and test a nuclear bomb, that's right we gave them billions in aid right after 911 and lo and behold they suddenly have a nuclear capability, and we do what........nothing.

But now we are on our high horse about Latvia and we are supposed to jump up and get into it with Russia all because we have some stupid treaty........gimme a break.

If Russia decided to go after Great Britain then I would say we should do something......................
don novicki
hunter
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:16 am

Re: Should the USA. go to War with Russia over Latvia?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:09 am

don novicki wrote:N. Korea goes ahead and builds and tests a nuclear bomb and tries to develop an ICBM capability, and we do what..............nothing.
We did not do nothing. We failed. That is a very different thing. I had friends working in North Korea under the nuclear agreement negotiated with Clinton.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/11/the-clinton-nuclear-deal-with-pyongyang-road-map-to-progress-or-dead-end-street

"This U.S.-North Korean agreement will help to achieve a long-standing and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula." -President Bill Clinton


"The new accord ... outlines an elaborate timetable for steps by each side.... But American officials acknowledge that the agreement ... will require enormous patience and perseverance .... [T]hey concede that it poses a risk for much of the next decade that North Korea could change its mind, cast aside the accord and have the basic fuel in hand to produce nuclear weapons." -The New York Times


When North Korea broke the agreement, again we didn't do nothing. Bush brought in China and put them in a tighter box. His basic strategy for this axis of evil member was simply to keep them in the box and let them rot. You may disagree with that strategy, but I do not.

don novicki wrote: Pakistan, who used U.S. money to develop, build, and test a nuclear bomb, that's right we gave them billions in aid right after 911 and lo and behold they suddenly have a nuclear capability, and we do what........nothing.

I don't know as much about the particulars of Pakistan. It is obviously a tough situation since much of the country supports the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Look where Osama lived. Was it right to not apply all the pressure we could to stop their nukes? I do not know. Certainly like North Korea, military attacks seem like the risk is too high for the low likelihood of success as well as the overall risk of those nations having the nukes. While we essentially did nothing, there are reasons why that may have been the least bad option at the time.

don novicki wrote:If Russia decided to go after Great Britain then I would say we should do something......................
Why? How about the Poland? Give 'em that. How about France? Is that too far? How much will you give up for peace in our time?

My opinion is simple. We don't want to have to answer that question and we for damn sure don't want Russia pushing to the border of somewhere where we should do something. I want a buffer zone. Don't let them go into Latvia, so they are not on the border of something where if they do cross it we are unquestionably in WWIII. Taking a piece of Ukraine while disconcerting is not automatic WWIII. It is however a sign that we cannot trust them to not keep pushing us until we get to our breaking point and we end up in a shooting war with Russia because some numbnuts one one side or the other did something really stupid. We need a very large margin for error because the cost of an error is so huge. We don't want to risk finding out how far they will go. They have already gone far enough to justify real concerns.

don novicki wrote:But now we are on our high horse about Latvia and we are supposed to jump up and get into it with Russia all because we have some stupid treaty........gimme a break.
It's none of this. It is keeping the barbarians from the gates and back a safe distance so we don't have to worry about them crossing a line where we probably unintentionally end up in WWIII. It is simply an ounce of prevention being far more valuable than a pound of cure.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: charlie beard and 7 guests