Retired Lt. Col.'s who served in Afghanistan gets applause for speech from the HFA Committee

a reply to: YouSir
The UN has always been just the League of Nations part 2. Nobody really cares what they think about anything, and their sanctions have never succeeded in forcing any country to do something it doesn't want to do.

a reply to: YouSir

I don’t think neutrality equates to siding with Russia as you originally pointed out though. To my knowledge the list of countries who actively support Russias endeavors is very limited.

And of the neutral list, many are just capitalizing on cheap oil as they don’t typically extend foreign policy outside of their region.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

However, the list of countries that do actively support Russia includes several major players: China, India, and Saudi Arabia. And all 3 are actively looking to create a new world order that doesn't take it's directions from Western society.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


Ummm...It doesn't matter what you think about the situation as it unfolds...all of those countries and continents are leaving behind the unipolarity of the western..."rules based order"...and moving forward into a multipolar world...Your witnessing the beginning of the end of the US petro dollar as the reserve currency...

This is to ensure that the west and primarily the US can't sanction and cut countries off from using their own assets in foreign banks...as they did with Russia...The west shot itself in both feet by their eagerness to punish Russia for doing the same thing the west has been doing for decades...invading other sovereign states...without UN mandate...and who cares about even with...

The world is moving on...and if the west doesn't change its adversarial ways it'll be left to its own devices...and the countries with the vast majority of industrial and resource capacities are not a part of the western world...


The Future will look back on these disastrous decisions by the west and point to this as the schism that caused its own downfall...



YouSir

In his time there was a chance to avoid all the foreign entanglements we are now faced with, but now it is far too late. We have become so entangled in all the commitments to foreign entities, there is now no way out.


History News Network

GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE PERIL OF FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. ... In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ...
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

GEORGE WASHINGTON

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: 1947boomer

Zelensky is clearly much more appreciative of this position taken by President Biden than he is of the position taken by the former POTUS, who is on record as saying that he would ignore this agreement (if he even knew that the agreement existed) and just give Putin what he wants.

got a link?

From the press release when Biden visited Zelensky in Kyiv on Feb. 20:

"Ukrainians remember the focus, the attention, the attitude of President Biden and United States to every single Ukrainian. To Ukraine, we remain constantly in communication with the President of United States over the course of this large-scale war. And this is the first visit over 15 years. And this is really the most important visit of the whole history of Ukraine-U.S. relationship.

.....

And as has become traditional in relationship between our countries, I would like to extend words of gratitude personally to Mr. President Biden and to his team, to the Congress, to all the U.S. people. And I thank you for this level of Ukraine-U.S. cooperation."

www.whitehouse.gov...

Trump's comments on giving parts of Ukraine away to Putin:

"Fox News cut out comments by former President Donald Trump in which he said he would have considered letting Russia have parts of Ukraine as part of a peace deal between the nations.

In an interview on Fox News host Sean Hannity's radio show on Monday [March 6], which is not broadcast by Fox, Trump revealed how he would try and broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in the wake of Russia's invasion last year.

Trump has claimed he can quickly bring an end to the war as he seeks election again in 2024.

In the interview, he boasted of how Russia would not have dared to launch an attack during his presidency, and added: "I could have negotiated. At worst, I could've made a deal to take over something, there are certain areas that are Russian-speaking areas, frankly, but you could've worked a deal."

www.businessinsider.com...

originally posted by: Dalamax
It’s a travesty and the condemning silence in the halls of ‘power’ is a telling measure of guilty cowardice.

a reply to: putnam6

WRONG! It's not 'guilty cowardice.' It's guilty complicity .

They are most all of them in on it.