Russia says will retaliate if U.S. weapons stationed on its borders

originally posted by: defcon25
a reply to: Gianfar

You are absolutely spot on.
The US only gets rid of dictators or regimes in these countries if they no longer adhere to Washingtons interests.
Everybody around the world knows this aswell as half of the American population and can see where it is leading.
You would need to be blind not to see whats going on.

U.S. Love Affair with Murderous Dictators and Hate for Democracy

And yet all the oil went to Russia and china. Iraq had nothing to do with oil. It was a Washington pipe dream. They figured if they could introduce a Democratic country into the middle east the rest would follow. Democratic country's are simply no threat to each other. They never attack one another the other reason was Saudi Arabia was pushing hard for his removal for obvious reasons. In fact ways willing to finance the whole thing.

originally posted by: mapsurfer_
Strange that the US did nothing but watch as the Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and now tries to place military armament in Eastern Europe. So these Eastern Europeans/US want to reestablish a cold war situation where they have troops on their borders poised for invasion. It's a pretty good indicator that US foreign policy and diplomacy (John Kerry) have failed, and these issue happened over a year ago. The official reaction was sanctions, but apparently that has had little to no effect. So what interest could the US have for acting as international enforcer? No winners in this battle and nothing has changed. So the Soviet Union breaks up into 15 little countries, and now the US is supposed to back these little countries with military might? The breaking up of the Soviet Union is not even something the US contributed to, or desired, so why are they getting involved now? If it is because of the invasion of Ukraine, I would say their reaction is too little, too late.

What are you rambling about?!
When did Russia invade Ukraine? Russia likes the idea of a non-Nato buffer between it's borders and Nato. The West started up trouble and caused the overthrow of a legal Ukrainian government which started this whole mess in the beginning.

The breakup of the USSR was absolutely due to interventions of the west especially with the Reagan/Wanta currency manipulation which hastened the bankruptcy of the country.

Not that your post leads me to believe that you are a student of history (or even current affairs) but if you want to know why the US is sticking their nose in the affairs of Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia … you just have to follow the money. The western economy is bankrupt and the can won't be kicked down the road much longer. In order to avoid any blame or responsibility, a big war will cover nicely to place blame on the evil (________) insert country(s) and most idiots watching TV will buy a ribbon for their car to support the effort. Sometimes I truly wonder of we deserve what we get for allowing our people to become so stupid.

a reply to: dragonridr

If you honestly think that the removal of Saddam was to "spread democracy" in the middle east you really don't know much about geopolotics.
Remember the old WMD Scaremongering.....
According to wiki this was the reason to go into Iraq:
"The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[
Just because China are buying their oil from Iraq does not mean that it doesn't benefit the US Foreign Policy on oil.
If China are more reliant on oil from Iraq rather than Iran this will benefit the US for their future Iran Invasion/War Plan which will come after Syria.
Why it’s good news for the U.S. that China is snapping up Iraq’s oil

And since when was Saudi Arabia a democratic country?
Saudi Arabia from wiki : absolute monarchy governed along Islamic lines

a reply to: dragonridr

I just thought I would also add

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States

If the US was so concerned about getting a Democratic State in the Middle East why did it not just overthrow the house of saud?

is it perhaps because it has absolutely nothing to do with spreading democracy anywhere?

originally posted by: defcon25
a reply to: dragonridr

I just thought I would also add

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States

If the US was so concerned about getting a Democratic State in the Middle East why did it not just overthrow the house of saud?

is it perhaps because it has absolutely nothing to do with spreading democracy anywhere?

They were hoping to. Neo cons like Wolfowitz weren't concerned with swoop a of mass destructuon. They flat out told you in interviews how they saw it. But people just weren't listening here's wolffowitz statement he makes it clear. And later admits even wmds were chosen to get it through congress.

"The unelected governments comprising the Arab League must be persuaded to reform, to embrace democratic pluralism, by force if necessary. The second step will be a reinvigoration of the peace process."

Neo cons thought they could create peace through war.

originally posted by: defcon25
a reply to: dragonridr

I just thought I would also add

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States

If the US was so concerned about getting a Democratic State in the Middle East why did it not just overthrow the house of saud?

is it perhaps because it has absolutely nothing to do with spreading democracy anywhere?

You are confusing the word "supported" with the word "tolerated."

originally posted by: notmyrealname


When did Russia invade Ukraine?

Some time on or before 11 March 2014.

also during "The Ruin", 1657-1686, then again after the annexation of Crimea in 1783, and under the guise of the Red Army, in February 1918 and again in December 1918 - the later one with the Soviet Govt all the time denying they were doing any such thing - familiar behavior!

According to the cheka there were then 100 Ukrainian uprisings against the reds from 1917-1932.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Man, you are really reaching if you consider any of that an invasion. If that is considered an invasion, the USA has invaded almost every government in the world.

Not a very strong argument.

According to President Poroshenko via NATO sources there is a huge mass of Russian Troops stationed on the Ukrainian border now.
Could the Russians be about to invade the Ukraine and what will happen if they do invade?

Ukrainian president: Record number of Russian troops on border

a reply to: defcon25

What? Again?

2nd

D0

a reply to: darkorange

lol
according to some of the posters on here the Russians have already invaded yet the President is still waiting on them to invade.
Could this finally be it?....

a reply to: notmyrealname

Man, you are really reaching if you consider any of that an invasion. If that is considered an invasion, the USA has invaded almost every government in the world.

How about this...

Putin admits to sending troops to Crimea (which was part of Ukraine) with the sole intent of annexing it to Russia.

Now what constitutes an invasion...well let's look at that shall we.

in·va·sion (ĭn-vā′zhən)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. The entry into bodily tissue and subsequent proliferation of an injurious entity, such as a pathogen or tumor.
3. An intrusion or encroachment:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Now I believe 1 and 3 pertain to what Russia did to Ukraine.

SO still think it wasn't an invasion, as Putin sent troops to a sovereign country on the premise of conquering it for themselves, but feel free to provide something that can refute the facts?

the USA has invaded almost every government in the world.

Seems now it is you that seems to be reaching here.

a reply to: defcon25

According to President Poroshenko via NATO sources there is a huge mass of Russian Troops stationed on the Ukrainian border now.

They have been for a while, so this really isn't new.

Could the Russians be about to invade the Ukraine and what will happen if they do invade?

Putin isn't that stupid...and they won't as then he risks losing whatever support he may have as Ukraine did nothing to Russia that would give them the reason to invade.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: notmyrealname

Man, you are really reaching if you consider any of that an invasion. If that is considered an invasion, the USA has invaded almost every government in the world.

How about this...

Putin admits to sending troops to Crimea (which was part of Ukraine) with the sole intent of annexing it to Russia.

Now what constitutes an invasion...well let's look at that shall we.

in·va·sion (ĭn-vā′zhən)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. The entry into bodily tissue and subsequent proliferation of an injurious entity, such as a pathogen or tumor.
3. An intrusion or encroachment:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Now I believe 1 and 3 pertain to what Russia did to Ukraine.

SO still think it wasn't an invasion, as Putin sent troops to a sovereign country on the premise of conquering it for themselves, but feel free to provide something that can refute the facts?

the USA has invaded almost every government in the world.

Seems now it is you that seems to be reaching here.

Nice try. Did you know that Russia and the Ukraine have an agreement allowing Russian soldiers that are stationed in Crimea and which is valid until 2042? Also, you lame attempt at using a dictionary seems to have left you missing the forrest while focusing on a tree. Nobody accused Russia of invading the Ukraine; they accused Russia of an illegal intervention (please try and keep up). Now, ANY COUNTRY that enters another via it's military is Illegal unless it has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council. If you want to find out which country has blatantly broken this law more than any other country of modern times, look at the flag on your clown face (avatar).

a reply to: notmyrealname

And did you know that the treaty only allowed Russian forces in the base and nit the peninsula and also any troop movement needed the permission of the Ukraine Government? How does that fit into your denial of reality?

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: notmyrealname

And did you know that the treaty only allowed Russian forces in the base and nit the peninsula and also any troop movement needed the permission of the Ukraine Government? How does that fit into your denial of reality?

And you forgot that putin admitted sending those armed troops that took over Ukraines buildings in Crimea. And the UN resolution that advised everyone not to recognize Russians claim on Crimea do to the use of force.

No matter how you look at it Russia invaded Crimea then according to Russians own government faked the election after locking out crimeas politicians from even voting on the referendum in the first place. Same with Eastern Ukraine Russian troops are purposefully keeping the fight going by putting Russians in charge in Eastern ukraine.

a reply to: stumason
Yes, and the treaty was signed with the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanuyovch and not the self admittedly illegal coup by the US/EUbacked Poroshenko government.

So your point is what exactly? If it is that they did not get the permission of an illegal government to protect their bases then you are correct. If not (as your attempted snide commentary indicates) that you simply have a BBC fed myopic view of things.

I am not a RUSSIA is great point of view person however this one is pure BS.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Nice try. Did you know that Russia and the Ukraine have an agreement allowing Russian soldiers that are stationed in Crimea and which is valid until 2042

Here you go enjoy the truth...

The treaty, called Agreement Between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Status and Conditions of the Russian Federation Black Sea Fleet’s Stay on Ukrainian Territory, was extended in 2010. Through the heroic efforts of the University of Chicago law librarian, Lyonette Louis-Jacques, I have gotten my hands on an English translation of that treaty. (The Russian version is available on the web, and you can use Google translate on it if you dare.)

As has already been reported, the treaty unsurprisingly does not give Russia the authority to conquer the Crimea. Nor does it give Russia the discretionary authority to move troops around the Crimea. It gives Russia the authority to locate troops on its bases in the Crimea, and to move them between those bases and Russian territory. But the troops must follow Ukrainian law and respect Ukrainian sovereignty. I paste some of the relevant articles below.

ericposner.com...

As it has been pointed out already the Russian military violated the agreement as soon as Russian troops stepped across the border.

Also, you lame attempt at using a dictionary seems to have left you missing the forrest while focusing on a tree. Nobody accused Russia of invading the Ukraine;

Well it seems you needed to be reminded what makes an invasion...which is what happened in Crimea, and then Eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine is as the Russians invaded Crimea with the sole intent of annexing it...which is then called an invasion.

they accused Russia of an illegal intervention (please try and keep up).

Let me ask you this...what intervening was Russia doing when they had planned the taking of another sovereign countries territories and when they do that isn't an invasion...yes it is.

Putin admits planning annexation of Crimea weeks before referendum

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

Since he had a plan to do what he did it turns into an invasion not an intervention (please try to keep up)

Now, ANY COUNTRY that enters another via it's military is Illegal unless it has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council

Well then it was illegal...







And their invasion was not even discussed by the UN Security Council before they invaded Ukraine.

If you want to find out which country has blatantly broken this law more than any other country of modern times, look at the flag on your clown face (avatar).

Source for that, since your blatantly saying it's a fact?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Good lord not this again...

a reply to: notmyrealname

Yes, and the treaty was signed with the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanuyovch and not the self admittedly illegal coup by the US/EUbacked Poroshenko government.

Where does the current Ukrainian government "self admit" that it is illegal? Oh wait! Your avatar is a berkut, never mind.