Ron Paul on Crimea: None of America’s business

page: 3
55
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


They gave up half of the Black Sea Fleet to Russia. Apparently, they were not hurting in that regard from a military standpoint as they were leasing military naval bases to Russia based on the Partition Treaty between the two countries in 1997. Part of the reason why it was divided was because Ukraine found itself with a navy that was partially loyal to Russia and happened to be in Crimea...Better to cut those who are not loyal to you loose than to count on them and be sorely mistaken.

reply to post by stargatetravels
 


The US agreement to the Budapest Memo was not a guarantee of military intervention by the US. In fact, neither the Bush or Clinton administrations offered a military guarantee. It was completely left out on purpose because they were not prepared to commit the US to such an agreement and they doubted it would pass Congress.

While Russia's actions in Crimea could be reasonably construed as a violation of the Budapest agreement, that still does not mean that we agreed to defend Ukraine militarily from such an event.




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Elton
So the USA should not honor its treaties when they are inconvenient? Maybe the USA should not make agreements they are not willing to honor...



The USA have ignored lots of international laws or treaties whenever it was convenient, so that would be nothing new at all.
Basically Russia isn't doing anything else than the US, followed by their political western bootlickers, has done for decades. Of course when the others do it, it is evil though, hence the amount of noise as of late.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
This is why I've always loved Ron Paul. He is not afraid of speaking the truth. He is absolutely correct regarding the picking and choosing of the US government in regards to helping countries in "need." The truth is that this "help" only comes when there is an ulterior motive. What is happening in Ukraine right now has been happening in one way or another all over the world, even as I write this. Yet why is the US government roaring over Ukraine? What is the driving force behind it? There must be something more to entire thing.

In my opinion, that thing has to do with seizing the opportunity to limit Russia's strategic options. It seems to me that the US "high command" is jumping at this opportunity to expel the Russian military from the Crimean Peninsula. I've laid out in other threads just how important this location is to the Russian military, seeing as how it is their only warm-water naval base in the world. Their presence there offers them more strategic options in the event that they are involved in any military action in the region, and it also gives them a missile launch site a bit further south, if they wanted one.

So I think the US realizes this, and thus will seize this opportunity to attempt to unite the world against Russia, and thus limit their strategic options in the long run. That is a relatively simple explanation, and I will admit that there may be a larger, overriding reason, but what I laid out is definitely a part of their reasoning.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Elton
 


Nice post. I was not aware of that. Yesterday I learned more about how Russia used armed troops to take over parliament buildings in Crimea. THIS is why the referendum a couple days ago is invalid. THIS is why people say the vote was at gun point. I read the other day it's a myth the vote was at gun point, but it completely ignored what happened late last month when Russia sent armed men into Crimea to prevent Ukrainian government from functioning. Additionally they installed prime minister Sergey Aksyonov; a pro-russia deputy of the Supreme Council of Crimea. The reason they did this - and they've admitted to this - is they wanted to de-escalate the situation and wanted to also prevent the newly elected interim government from entering into Crimea and supposedly henceforth oppressing the pro-russia population. HOWEVER, we all know why Russia did this: They want the Crimea peninsula. I bet they also want to prevent Ukraine from becoming too friendly with the European Union and/or NATO.

Here're some links for people who do not know what I write about:
February 28:
www.themoscowtimes. com - New Ukraine Government Has White House's Support, U.S. Vice President Says...
February 28:
news.yahoo.com - Russian troops deploy in Crimea as Obama warns Kremlin...
March 3:
www.cnn.com - Ukraine mobilizes troops after Russia's 'declaration of war'...
March 4:
www.washingtonpost.com - Transcript: Putin defends Russian intervention in Ukraine...

Russia felt the interim government was illegitimate. They used this as an excuse to invade Crimea and overtake its government functions.
edit on 18-3-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
So we are going to argue with a man that has more experience in politics and law than we do, and flame him for being right?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I always agreed with Ron Paul's perspective on America's foreign policy. His ideas are drastic, but I believe in the end it would benefit the entire world and most importantly Americans at home. However, I would be extremely surprised if he did become president, the powers that be wouldn't allow any of his ideas to come to fruition. We all have a good feeling that the president really doesn't control policy nor does he have the power to change the direction of this country.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


That might be because the new government is illegitimate, as through a coup sponsored by the west?
I assume that is not in one of your papers.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
So... was Kuwait 'America's business'?

Because that is the last case I can remember of a country invading its neighbor and claiming it as part of itself... and I have this vague remembrance that it didn't work out all that well for the invader.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Elton
So the USA should not honor its treaties when they are inconvenient? Maybe the USA should not make agreements they are not willing to honor...



Maybe the USA should worry more about it's 15 trillion dollar debt. It's phony war on terror and drugs and it's complete inept approach to health care, job creation and amnesty. After all that is taken care of, by all means, start honoring "treaties". K? Thanks.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


That should be the case but the ones influencing policy don't care about that as it's US citizens/government who owe that debt. The companies who profit off current US policies don't owe the debt. These companies profit greatly from the wars, access to resources, stability (instability for their competitors) and protection US foreign policy provides.

Not all companies have an interest in or resources to influence foreign policy of course and it's mainly ones with major global interests like banking and oil who influence foreign policy. Many companies would actually be better off under a Ron Paul style foreign policy though not so much better off they would spend the resources needed to change the status quo and it's doubtful they could compete with the influence of the very powerful banking and oil industries anyway.

At the very least these companies should be made pay more taxes so the US doesn't have to borrow money to sustain this favorable business environment for them. The problem is they are mostly multi-national corporations and could relocate their headquarters (many don't even reside in the US to begin with) so it's hard to make them pay more taxes and will be even harder to make them pay for any of this debt that has been accumulated.
edit on 18-3-2014 by john452 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Elton
So the USA should not honor its treaties when they are inconvenient? Maybe the USA should not make agreements they are not willing to honor...



Yes, exactly. We should not get entangled in foreign alliances just like the constitution says. Where the hell did we the American people all sign up for some bull# treaty??



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Sorry, but Ron Paul is wrong here. Just because someone has some good ideas doesn't automatically make their ideology right every time in every circumstance. The problem Ron Paul has always had is that he wants to make a very sharp abrupt shift to being isolationist. The US has too many responsibilities in the world to simply cancel all our alliances in one day, and until the day comes where we actually can get out of foreign entanglements the responsible thing to do is to honor our treaties.

The US's opinion on Crimea is irrelevant as is Russias and even the opinion of Crimea itself. Crimea was part of the Ukraine, the only thing that matters is if Ukraine still considers it part of their territory or not. If they do, we should defend it. To do otherwise will set a very bad precedent in the world. In the future we don't want Pakistan holding nukes. We want NK to give theirs up as well. If we show that NATO is unwilling to defend a nation that has disarmed, what does that do to future negotiations? There are some pretty serious ramifications to not following through here that go beyond the idea of containing Russia.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Aazadan
Sorry, but Ron Paul is wrong here. Just because someone has some good ideas doesn't automatically make their ideology right every time in every circumstance. The problem Ron Paul has always had is that he wants to make a very sharp abrupt shift to being isolationist. The US has too many responsibilities in the world to simply cancel all our alliances in one day, and until the day comes where we actually can get out of foreign entanglements the responsible thing to do is to honor our treaties.

The US's opinion on Crimea is irrelevant as is Russias and even the opinion of Crimea itself. Crimea was part of the Ukraine, the only thing that matters is if Ukraine still considers it part of their territory or not. If they do, we should defend it. To do otherwise will set a very bad precedent in the world. In the future we don't want Pakistan holding nukes. We want NK to give theirs up as well. If we show that NATO is unwilling to defend a nation that has disarmed, what does that do to future negotiations? There are some pretty serious ramifications to not following through here that go beyond the idea of containing Russia.


So we should dismiss the people's will aswell? Ignorance at its finest I tell you. And no, there are no US responsabilities outside its own borders, no matter what you want to believe. NATO is a farce to put countries under the thumb of the elite, look at the conditions to join yourself.
And, after the referendum, whatever ukraine considers about crimea, is moot.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Yusomad
So we should dismiss the people's will aswell? Ignorance at its finest I tell you. And no, there are no US responsabilities outside its own borders, no matter what you want to believe. NATO is a farce to put countries under the thumb of the elite, look at the conditions to join yourself.
And, after the referendum, whatever ukraine considers about crimea, is moot.


The peoples will means nothing. There is evidence of vote tampering and votes not being counted fairly but even aside from those issues, people don't have the right to secede from a nation because people aren't sovereign entities. If they want to live in Russia they can cross the border to Russia. If the government of the Ukraine still considers Crimea to be theirs, then it is theirs until another nation uses force to annex it. Something we are bound by treaty to prevent.

Failure to defend Ukraine here will guarantee North Korea will never be handled peacefully.

As far as the responsibilities go, a sudden isolationist attitude from the US would set the world back so far that it would be like the fall of Rome all over again. Half the worlds governments would fall, EVERYONES currency would devalue to literally nothing as global finance comes into the picture, and the half of the worlds governments that survive, would keep us isolated (easy to do when we have no east/west land routes), boycott us, and as soon as militarily able declare war on us. Within a month it would be a true SHTF scenario, but then again this is ATS where a bunch of people actually want that to happen.
edit on 19-3-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

HardCorps
reply to post by Sparkymedic
 


I'm Native American
and if you look at the history of my people, how fairly we were treated by the Government...
then you'll have a real grasp of the true value of a Treaty and what their worth...


edit on 18-3-2014 by HardCorps because: (no reason given)



thank you for saying that

Wolfenz

When you have a Reservation caught between 2 boarders! Canada & US ! !!




Jay Treaty 1794

Aboriginal Border Crossing Rights and the
Jay Treaty of 1794
www.akwesasne.ca...

Akwesasne
en.wikipedia.org...

Final stages of reaching new treaty
www.standard-freeholder.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
You can always predict the stances of Leftists, Rightists and Libertarians (or any other ideology for that matter). Libertarians are "non-interventionist", so thats exactly the stance you're going to get. The problem with ideology is that it's inflexible and does not take various contexts into account. Ukraine I dont know, but I bet North Korea could use some intervention.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

namehere
reply to post by HardCorps
 


he may be right in regards to not interfering and ignoring what happens to foreign nations because it's not our business, but when you make agreements then things become your business and it's just as wrong to run from it just because it doesn't benefit you, that's selfish and proves that you can never be trusted, it's what cowards do, that's why it's too late at this point to say it's not our business.

we are already close to being doomed as a nation and running will only make it worse for us, it will only make other nations hate us more until one day, when we need help the most and beg for it we will, guess what? our friends will kick us in the face for abandoning them and pray for our destruction. cowards can never be relied upon or trusted and will always be abandoned by others in the end after all.


So your suggesting we start a war with Russia... Sail the Seventh Fleet into the Black Sea, Drop the 101st Army Airborne in Crimea. Have the Marines storm the beaches around the sea ports at Kerch and Sevastopol? Basically start a shooting war with Russia?

Why, to what end? And why the US... The Ukraine want's to join the EU not become a protectorate of the US. America is not the worlds police force and the big boys need to stop thinking we are! We have our own problems to deal with right here at home. The only people to benefit is the military–industrial complex who doesn't give a damn about freedom or right, their only interests is in profits and quarterly sales projections.

And that my friend is Coming from a Marine who saw several of my brothers in arms die all to agues Baby Bushes daddy's over inflated ego.

I pick my battles and trust me, this one is not my fight



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   


Ron Paul on Crimea: None of America’s business




America is in the business of war. War means profits for the likes of Halliburton and the rest of the military industrial complex.

As always follow the money and who profits. Dr. Pauls stance is correct but it won't fly with the men behind the curtain.

Manufacturing has all been out sourced, High tech has been taken over by the Orientals, Energy production is Frakked,
What's left??
edit on 19-3-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

HardCorps
So your suggesting we start a war with Russia... Sail the Seventh Fleet into the Black Sea, Drop the 101st Army Airborne in Crimea. Have the Marines storm the beaches around the sea ports at Kerch and Sevastopol? Basically start a shooting war with Russia?

Why, to what end? And why the US... The Ukraine want's to join the EU not become a protectorate of the US. America is not the worlds police force and the big boys need to stop thinking we are! We have our own problems to deal with right here at home. The only people to benefit is the military–industrial complex who doesn't give a damn about freedom or right, their only interests is in profits and quarterly sales projections.

And that my friend is Coming from a Marine who saw several of my brothers in arms die all to agues Baby Bushes daddy's over inflated ego.

I pick my battles and trust me, this one is not my fight


To enforce the treaty we signed. Having lots of defense pacts is a bad idea because they will inevitably have to be used, it's a failure of a previous administration, but to not follow through would be even worse. If we fail to follow through defending the Ukraine every other defense pact we have ever signed is suddenly going to be worthless. That is not a situation we want. Failure to follow through here also means the death of nuclear non proliferation.

I'm not a war hawk, I was against Iraq, Syria, and many others. The Ukraine however is our fight.





top topics
 
55
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join