Would you support an armed invasion of Southern Arizona by the Mexican Army?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:20 AM - Edit history (4)

After all, there is a vast amount of ethnic Mexicans living in that area, perhaps even a plurality. And that land actually used to belong to Mexico before it was ceded to the US in the Gadsden Purchase.

Because those are the exact same argument being used by some in arguing that Russia is justified in its invasion of Crimea, or even that Ukraine should simply cede that territory to Russia.

The only difference being that the Mexican presence in Southern Arizona is a result of natural immigration, and not forced Mexicanization by the Mexican government. And there is not nearly the track record of the Mexican government meddling in US affairs like there is of Russia meddling in Ukrainian affairs. Neither of these facts help Russia's cause.

Edit to add (sad that even I have to do so): I am not calling for US military intervention in Ukraine, nor do I think it is likely or proper. So you need not even go there when considering the question.

[PCIntern]

1. I don't know...

will Jan Brewer still be governor afterwards...?

Maybe not a total loss...

[newfie11]

10. Agreed

Pretty sure she wouldn't be to popular with them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. Actually, such a hypothetical would probably make Arizona even more of a conservative bastion.

Since from what I understand the southern portion of Arizona is considered more blue than the north.

[bemildred]

2. Definitely. They can take all of it. nt

[liberal N proud]

3. It is a big sand pile with a huge ditch at the end.

[Adrahil]

4. Hey, it used to belong to them! And a lot of ethnic Mexicans live there!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. Sovereignty, Schmovereignty. nt

[morningfog]

6. No. Not do I support Russia in Crimea. Nor would I support the US military involement

in any way shape or form.

[Adrahil]

7. That's fair enough....

... but there has been more than one post here basically saying it was OK for Russia to do this, for reasons cited in this thread.

[reformist2]

8. This is dumb. The borders over there are hardly settled.

[stevenleser]

9. Exactly. The arguments some are using to justify a clearly unprovoked war of aggression are bizarre.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Haiti.

We assert our right to military intervention wherever and whenever we want.

[stevenleser]

12. Who is the we? The OP didn't support any of those. He is perfectly fine to call the Ukraine invasion

out.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. "We" is the US government.

"We" have asserted our right to intervene anywhere in the americas since Monroe. We have carried out on that policy dozens of times. It doesn't make it right, it makes it reality. You can have all the jingoistic outrage here you want, but the facts are that Russia is not going to lost control of its strategic military assets in Ukraine. "We" know that, and "we" are engaged in bluster and feigned outrage.

[stevenleser]

14. That has nothing to do with the OP. We on DU can call out unprovoked wars of aggression all we want

particularly those of us who opposed the war in Iraq, another unprovoked war of aggression.

Your raising other unprovoked wars of aggression as a supposed reason why DUers cannot do this is a non-sequitur.

[el_bryanto]

15. Well we aren't citizens of Russia, except those of us that are

Most of us are citizens of the United States and the focus on this site is US politics. So the question isn't what should Russia be doing particularly; it's what should the United States be doing in this situation. In that context, Warren's comments, to me, seem to be more about the disconnect between our national willingness to use war to achieve our regional aims while denying Russia the right to do the same.

I am sure we'd all rather that both us and Russia were better international neighbors. But the issue before us is more about what should the United States do in response to this situation.

Bryant

[stevenleser]

16. No, we are not discussing what the US should be doing. We are discussing what we think of the

situation. 99% of DUers do not think the US can do much about it. That includes those critical of this anschluss in Ukraine, and those that seem to be celebrating it.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. I understand entirely why you wish to put the glaring hypocrisy off the table.

[KittyWampus]

40. No one is putting the hypocrisy off the table. It seems there are some DU'ers however,

who only have a moral compass when it points to unsavory bits of US policy. And I am NOT referring to you personally.

Most of us can object to things like the US intervening in Syria AND Russia intervening in the Ukraine.

That said, it seems mostly like the usual bickering back and forth. Not all of it has been a total waste.

I have learned a bit about the history of the region.

[stevenleser]

87. + 10^10^100, you nailed it. This should be an OP nt.

[Warren Stupidity]

123. Seems to me that the same people running around calling us "putin lovers" were foaming at the bit

to attack Syria.

[KittyWampus]

126. There were precious few on DU foaming at the bit to attack Syria.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. nonsense. There were plenty. Of course as the administration about-faced, so did they.

Then all of a sudden they were against an attack all along.

[geek tragedy]

143. Sorry, that's plain incorrect. VAST majority here opposed military action

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023606286

I support a US military strike on Syria 7 (5%)
I do not support a US military strike on Syria 121 (92%)

[Warren Stupidity]

144. well yes the vast majority of DU'ers did oppose the war. Did I claim it was the majority view?

Specifically, THE BOG did a remarkable somersault over Syria, an acrobatic feat almost unparalleled here.

[geek tragedy]

145. I don't pay attention to BOG. nt

[stevenleser]

131. I was against going to war in Syria and publicly on my show criticized the administration

for seeming to be heading in that direction.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. My OP didn't concern what US solutions should be.

For the record, I'm against military solutions for obvious reasons.

Rather my OP was a way to bring home the ridiculousness that some here have justified Russia's invasion of Ukrainian soil, and feel that Ukraine should happily acquiesce to such aggression.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Nobody is justifying it as in "this is great, glad they did it".

Quite a few people, myself included, have pointed out the obvious geopolitical reasons why Russia is doing this, and how there is absolutely nothing much we can do about it, and how freaking hypocritical it is for us to denounce their unilateralism.

[stevenleser]

64. Actually, yes, there are several folks doing just that. Do you need links? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

77. Sure. Links to anything other than low post count trolls.

And the text has to specifically indicate that they support the Russian take over a s a good thing.

[stevenleser]

79. Here is the first

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024595556#post13

[Warren Stupidity]

82. "If Russia wants to keep the Crimea, that's fine with me."

Um seriously? Is that the best you can do?

That is utter fail Steven, and you know it. That statement is a claim of personal indifference to the situation.

Please continue. This should be amusing.

[stevenleser]

85. How is that a fail? If someone had said the same about Bush and Iraq, what would you have said?

I'll tell you what you would have said. You would have said that this person was approving of a war crime, an unprovoked war of aggression.

It's not a fail, it's right on.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. It is not a statement of support. You are just being silly.

It is a statement of indifference. I'll be waiting for your link to an actual statement of support.

[stevenleser]

107. You know I am right. If someone had said they had no problem with us being in Iraq and we should

keep it, you would have heaped insults upon that person.

My proof stands.

[Warren Stupidity]

108. So in summary, that nonsense was as close as you could come to

anyone actually supporting Russia.

OK.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

118. Another:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10024590978#post9

[Warren Stupidity]

121. "Crimea used to be a part of Russia. Russia just wants it back."

You've linked to two true statements.

I'm still looking for "I support Russia". So far you've got nothing.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

119. And this post essentially says, "Too bad, so sad":

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024583047

[Warren Stupidity]

122. Again, not a statement of support. In this case you actually have to make up what was said.

I'm just aksing but not argue...how the hell do we tell Russia to not intervene in Ukraine??
It used to belong to the USSR, half the people are Russian and Russia has a military base there. How would we react under the same circumstances? I just don't understand some things about our minding every nation's issues with their own people and those that have closer ties than we do? Isn't this a coup or civil war>

Not a statement of support for Russia, a statement of the obvious, there is nothing we can do about it, along with the basic facts: Crimea historically was part of Russia, Crimea's population is majority Russian.

You all have nothing, and yet you continue to accuse everyone who is not lock step with the MIC and the War Party of being "putin lovers". It is fucking pathetic and disgraceful.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

124. Link to one post where I implicitly/explicitly call anyone a "Putin Lover"

Or where I'm actually trumpeting the military industrial complex and the "war party".

One post. One single post.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

128. Well said

[Spider Jerusalem]

104. Not everything is about the USA, though, as much as Americans like to think that it is.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. It has everything to do with the OP.

If Mexico asserted, as we do, unilateral rights to act in the region, and had the military capability to act, it could, as we do, do whatever the fuck it wanted to in the region.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. As the actual OP, I can't agree.

In the construct of the analogy, the United States could be Germany. Or Russia. Or China. Or Swaziland. Or Widgetstan. Whatever.

This question is not asking what the international response should be. This question goes to whether or not Russia could ever be justified in doing what it did. And you have a few people on this website that seem to be arguing that it is, on those grounds.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Actually your OP is humorous in that we simply took northern Mexico by force.

Essentially the start of a long series of imperialist military adventures that continue to the present day.

[stevenleser]

86. Wow, you are still doing it and still not getting it.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. No just pointing out the ridiculous irony in the OP's example.

[aquart]

127. Not feigned. We don't recognize anybody else's right to do what we do.

Get real.

You have to recognize the genuine sincerity of international hypocrisy.

I mean it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. Thank you.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[jsr]

17. +1

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Two wrongs don't make a right

[LiberalEsto]

21. The Russians did the same thing in Estonia

Stalin shipped hundreds of thousands of Estonians off to Siberia. Then he sent hundreds of thousands of Russians to live and work in Estonia. The Russians took all the leadership and management positions, while Estonians got the crappy jobs. During the Soviet years, it was illegal to fly the Estonian flag or sing the national anthem. Schools were forbidden to teach in the Estonian language, and Russian was the official language. People secretly taught their kids Estonian at home to preserve their language. This was a program of deliberate "Russification" to wipe out the Estonian language and culture.

(Disclaimer: I am the daughter of Estonian immigrant parents, although my mom was also ethnically part Ukrainian.)

Even after regaining its independence in 1990, Estonia remains home to a large number of Russians, almost 1/4 of its total population. The older ones refuse to learn the Estonian language. Whenever they have an issue with the Estonian government, they complain to Russia, which reacts to protect its people with threats of force. For example, several years ago an Estonian city government wanted to relocate a Soviet war memorial statue from a busy intersection to a nearby Russian cemetery where many soldiers were buried. The Russian population threw a collective fit, and Big Brother Russia was threatening force to "protect" its people.

Estonians see what's happening in Ukraine and know Russia could and would send invading troops into Estonia on a pretext that Russians in Estonia were somehow under threat. Having a large Russian population living there is Russia's "insurance policy" -- an excuse to invade. That's why Estonians were so anxious to join the EU and NATO.

The same situation of large Russian populations exists in Latvia and Lithuania as well as Ukraine and probably in a number of other former Soviet republics.

Even though these ethnically Russian populations live in these countries and look to Russia if they feel threatened, you have to wonder. If Russia is so great, and their loyalty is to Russia, why don't they move back home to Russia? Is it because Russia provides them with benefits to stay put, or is it that life in Russia isn't as good as it is for them in these more or less democratic nations?

[laundry_queen]

43. Bingo.

I agree with everything you said. Everything.

I wonder if people here (and I've use this analogy in other threads) would think it acceptable for France to send troops into Quebec? After all, there is a majority ethnic French population there...many of those people want to separate and even elect separatist governments from time to time. Should France invade Quebec and claim the province for itself and Canada has no say? Could you imagine people here at DU saying, "Well, the rest of Canada is mostly English speaking, and Quebec is French speaking so it's only natural that France invades and wants the territory for itself, I mean did we really expect anything different?"

Um, no.

Same thing here - Ukraine is a sovereign nation that should have the right to determine its own fate and the fate of all people living within its borders.

[peace13]

27. He, he, he, he he...

I can dream can't I. Oh hear Jan's citizens cry that they need some socialist defense in time of need. Knowing that Mexico would not want the stump dumb residents of AZ I am pretty sure this would never happen. No offense to the AZ people here. Obviously you aren't in the club!

Edited to ad:
And...to clarify stump dumb. I live in Ohio, our governor is a thief and a liar. Anyone who voted for him or intends to do so in November is well......too stupid for their own good. We have suffered for years here. The people of Ohio, Arizona and Wisconsin who do not realize what has happened to their states at the doing of the the Rethugs better wake up because if Mexico or Canada decided to invade, cleaning house could look pretty good!

[independentpiney]

28. Southern Arizona isn't vital to Mexican strategic interests

A better analogy would be California or Hawaii peacefully seceding and then aligning with China

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. Except an armed invasion isn't "peaceful secession"

It's annexation.

Nor should "strategic interests" be considered justification for any invasion. I'm sure there are plenty of places the US could invade for strategic interests (and it did just that back in 2003). Doesn't make it right.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Nobody is saying it is "right".

I'll try one more time: it was entirely expected. It is entirely within the global geopolitical framework, despite all the huffing. Every major military power asserts unilateral rights to act as it sees fit over areas of the planet it views as its "sphere of influence". Right/wrong doesn't really enter into the picture, unless you just want to make simplistic feel good statements of feigned outrage.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

35. Well you have people here on this website more than willing to excuse it.

On those same grounds.

And here at DU, we can and should talk about right and wrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. No we people on this website pointing out that the nationalistic idiocy

on display here from the usual suspects is STUPID.

But if you wish to go to war, please do volunteer.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

49. Again, please tell me where I advocate going to war.

Show me exactly how I am advocating US military intervention.

[independentpiney]

45. I was referring to breakup of the Soviet Union

which was generally peaceful in the Ukraine's case. And to make the analogy better, let's throw Oregon and Washington in with the states that for whatever reason broke away and formed a sovereign Pacific nation on our border. The US would not sit idly by if that nation aligned with China or another competing world power with our Pacific fleet based there We would invade if necessary to protect the bases and our Pacific access. I agree in principle that strategic interest shouldn't be a justification for invasion, but they are one the main reasons for war in general. Comparing the Russian situation with Crimea to invading countries half way around the world is apples and oranges from a geopolitical standpoint.

[okaawhatever]

74. Where was the threat to the base at Sevastopol? That's all Russian propaganda. Their lease was

extended for another 25 years, it was one of the first things the pro-Russian Yanukovych did when he took office. If Russia would have taken over the area because Ukraine refused to honor the lease it would be different. When the Philippines cancelled our base lease at Subic Bay we left. We didn't take over. It cost us billions to move everything. We're back there now with a legal lease and the approval of government, that's how it's done.

[independentpiney]

139. Completely apples and oranges, like the o.p.

The Philippines, like Iraq in the previous example in this sub-thread don't share a border with the US and were never a US state. Crimea was a contiguous part of the Russian Empire since 1783, and was the Crimean SSR until added to the Ukraine SSR in the 1950's. Kruschev and some of the other Soviet biggies of the time just happened to be eastern Ukrainians. And Subic Bay was never the United States sole or main Pacific access port. Apples and oranges.

[bowens43]

30. the difference is , what happens in the ukraine is not our business.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Maybe, maybe not.

That's really beside the point.

The point really is basic respect for the sovereignty of neighboring lands. Which the US hasn't always abided by, but again, that too is besides the point.

[peace13]

41. It is all our business!

Just kidding. After fifteen years of useless, unsuccessful war, Americans are no longer able to decipher what is and isn't grounds for invasion. They don't even care that we have been unsuccessful in every effort to invade in the past fifteen years!

If they didn't real from shock when we invaded Iraq on false pretenses, showed it on TV in its' faked entirety, lied about weapons of mass destruction and then used white phosphorous in Fallujah then, well it is hopeless to try to discuss anything with them.

Our soldiers did the best they could with impossible missions geared to make money on their backs. We need to make damn sure that the next time we put any of our people's lives on the line it is for a just and right cause!

[kelly1mm]

132. Except for that pesky little agreement we signed with them in 1994 for said we (US/UK) would

guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity if they gave up their nuclear weapons (which they did).

[Katashi_itto]

34. Invading Az affects us directly. Ukraine does not. However as a vet, you join the service and

then go big on the war talk

[Tommy_Carcetti]

38. Oh for fuck's sake, did you even read my OP?

Where was I even "going big on the war talk?"

And yes, Mexico invading southern Arizona affects the US directly. Just like Russia invading Crimea affects Ukraine directly.

[Katashi_itto]

110. So Russia's actions still has nothing to do with us.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

115. We don't live in a binary world.

It's not as though we either have to intervene militarily or otherwise sit by idly as countries violate their neighbor's sovereignty.

Last check we still were considered one of the most influential nations on this planet and we are capable of solutions that don't involve our military firing off a single round.

[Katashi_itto]

141. DIPLOMATIC SOLUTIONS ARE FINE

[Tommy_Carcetti]

146. GLAD YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. nt

[kelly1mm]

133. Except for that pesky little agreement we signed with them in 1994 for said we (US/UK) would

guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity if they gave up their nuclear weapons (which they did).

[rrneck]

36. Can we give 'em Texas? nt

[kelliekat44]

37. Apples and oranges make tasty applesauce. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

39. Please proceed, governor. nt

[Voice for Peace]

42. totally. It sounds like a great solution for Arizona.

[mike_c]

44. Arizona? Absolutely!

Jan Brewer's last stand!

[FarCenter]

46. The Gadsden Purchase was a bad deal -- If we can sell it back, we should.

It was done with the view that we needed the easier southern route to build a transcontinental railroad. However, it proved unnecessary.

Today, we might have to reroute I-10 and a little of I-8, but it would be fairly trivial.

[magical thyme]

48. not even close to a relevent analogy.

1. you have to be dealing with a 'failed state' country that is between a financial rock and a hard place. Flat broke and indebted, with only 2 sources of financial aid: 1 source is the IMF, which will give loans combined with severe financial austerity that will destroy any hope of economic recovery; the 2nd source is your "Mexico," who has been providing financial support through energy subsidies that are desperately needed to keep your citizens from cooking (or freezing to death as in the Ukraine) and already has economic and cultural ties with you. Both choices are unpalatable to one faction or the other, but because your failed state is totally broke, one must be chosen.

2. Arizona's democratically elected President, looking at how well IMF austerity programs have worked around the world, makes the unpopular choice of #2 against the wishes of half the country as the lesser of 2 evils.

3. 1% elitist neocons from a country from the other side of the world -- say, China -- that was betting on option #1 funnel large amounts of money into Arizona to stoke ethnic divisions, inciting government overthrow and pushing for regime change after your democratically elected President opts for choice #2. The neonazi arm of the resistance mounts a successful coup and installs itself as government.

4. Your Mexico now has a failed state on its border, with increasing threats of violence by the neonazi arm of the resistance group. In the meantime, your Mexico has citizens and former citizens being threatened in your Arizona.

You also are ignoring the fact it really isn't all that long ago that Russian ceded Crimea to the Ukraine.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. Well, in your reality, it's not relevant.

You make huge assumptions on things that are far from the actual truth of the situation. Such as assuming the change in power in Kyiv was financed by American neo-cons and funneled into the hands of ultranationalist neo-nazis who "mounts a successful coup and installs itself as government", and are now "increasing threats of violence" upon, well, you don't say.

In your reality, that is.

None of what you say, however, in the least justifies an incursion by one country onto another country's soil.

[magical thyme]

56. not my assumptions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024596196

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. Okay, well *his* assumptions then.

That you apparently have incorporated as your own assumptions.

I just cannot see the logic in people who assume that thousands upon thousands of Ukrainians were somehow wittingly or unwittingly part of a super huge American neo-conservative plot that all worked perfectly to plan. That's 9-11 Truther territory to me, frankly.

[magical thyme]

59. assumptions based on evidence. but impossible, of course, because our neocon contingent has never,

ever incited revolution and regime change anywhere. Ever. Right. Whatever.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

63. You really think they'd be able to mobilize thousands upon thousands of protesters like that?

Buying off a few top military officers for a military coup is one thing. Coordinating crowds of thousands of protesters who represent a wide swath of ideology is quite another.

[magical thyme]

66. yes. it's the power of marketing communications.

look at how many thousands and thousands of people are mobilized to buy specific brands of toxic crap, like pepsi or coke, and so on.

Look how many millions of people are mobilized to go out and vote every few years, even against their own self interest.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. Let me guess.

It was a Constant Contact mass email, wasn't it?

[pampango]

50. Only if there is a danger of Mexican-Americans being mistreated by the Arizona state government.

Wait!

[oldandhappy]

51. ha ha

How about south Texas? Huge chunk of Texas sticks down into Mexico south of what would be a straight border. Lots and lots of Hispanics.

[LisaL]

52. Where can I sign up for this?

[Scootaloo]

54. A few corrolary questions

1) Is Arizona an autonomous republic?
2) Is the United States undergoing a political crisis wherein two governments are claiming legitimacy, one of them with elements hostile to Mexicans?
3) Did the Arizonan Prime Minister ask Mexican troops to come protect ethnic Mexicans in this crisis?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. Hmm.

1. Doesn't really matter. Arizona could be autonomous or it could just be the United States. I was thinking more in the context of the United States, though.
2. Again, I don't think it matters. But if you want to presume that to further extend the analogy, go ahead.
3. That wouldn't make sense, unless you are claiming Yanukovych was asking the Russians to invade to protect Russians???

[Scootaloo]

60. Point being, they're not comparable situations

There's a lot of variables involved here, and since your response to just a few of them is "DON'T CARE!" reveals that you're either really ignorant, or your interest has less to do with the actual condition of Ukraine and more about some sort of "OMG RUSSIA BAD LET'S FIGHT RUSSIA!" machismo bullshit.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

65. Did you actually read my OP?

Again, where did I advocate US military intervention in Ukraine? That's right, no where.

The purpose of the analogy was not to ask what course of action the United States should take. The purpose of the analogy was to ask DU a very basic premise: whether or not you support armed military invasions of countries onto foreign soil? The answer--given our experience with Iraq--should obviously be a very resounding, "No", but I've heard more than one person here say, "Ukraine should just cede Crimea back to the Russians because lots of ethnic Russians live there, and Russia used to control Crimea."

Not to mention your insinuation that I don't actually care about the interests of Ukraine, given the fact I have numerous relatives living there as we speak.

[bigwillq]

55. No (nt)

[geckosfeet]

61. Oh. Mexico has leases for military installations in Arizona.

That is interesting news.

Please provide additional details - I am interested in learning how many troops and naval vessels Mexico has stationed there.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

62. You do know that Russian troops are now far beyond their naval bases, right?

They are essentially at the door of mainland Ukraine as we speak.

You know that, right? That the Russian presence in Ukraine isn't limited to on those naval bases?

They are on foreign soil.

[geckosfeet]

93. Uh. You do know that they need to secure ground routes to their bases don't you?

Don't you? Huh huh don't you?

No reasonable military person would give up that access.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

96. How has the situation regarding the naval bases changed?

They maintained naval bases fine before the change in power. Why would they now need ground routes?

[geckosfeet]

116. I am certain that they had relatively unrestricted access via road travel

before the doo doo went down. They also need airfields and probably had them to fly in supplies etc. I am not saying it is an ideal situation, but Russia clearly wants to maintain supply routes to their people on those bases and airfields.

On the other hand it does not seem reasonable to expect Russia to simply abandon their troops, military hardware and military infrastructure because of Ukraines internal political chaos. They had agreements with the previous government and they probably expect them to be maintained/honored by the new government. Given the escalating chaos that will likely ensue with the change in government I can see how Russia would be concerned.

[Marr]

68. If such a thing were threatened, would you want the Chinese to invade and "sort it out"?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

69. No.

Does that answer your question?

[Marr]

71. Yes, but I have to wonder why you'd argue a point of principle

without suggesting any actual action.

So you're against a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Great. But the next step is actually doing something about it, and that's why people are so hesitant to cede even that initial, rhetorical inch. We've all heard this talk before.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

75. Basically because more than one person here seemed to be at odds with the general premise...

....that countries invading other countries with their military is bad, m'kay?

Yes, there is inevitably a next step to be had. And yes, for that next step to be US military intervention, it would be a disaster. That's why it's not going to happen. Isolation and economic pressure on Russia by the global community is key in this situation.

[Marr]

83. Thank you, Secretary of State Tom_Carcetti.

I'm glad you're in charge.

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. no, but if a solid majority of Southern Arizona residents supported it- it would make the situation

more nuanced. But I agree with you that the people of Crimea have no right to self-determination and control over their destiny. That would simply disrupt the power balances just too much. The Crimean majority needs to learn that their political future is not up to them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

72. We're not talking about a referendum for independence here.

We're talking about an armed invasion by a foreign power.

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. I don't support that either. But I gather you are saying you would support a referendum?

Do you really believe the people of Crimea have a right to choose their political future? Wouldn't it be very dangerous to allow them a say in their future? I doubt that would be a good idea at all - too destabilizing. They should accept their lot in life; submit and obey.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

80. I wouldn't object to a referrendum.

But clearly that's not what is at play as we speak.

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. would the Ukrainian government accept the results?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

101. I don't know.

Hopefully, if that be the people's true will, yes.

In that situation, we'd have to see.

[Douglas Carpenter]

111. I'm pretty sure expert opinion suggest that absolutely they would not. Although I don't think there

is any serious doubt that a solid majority in a truly free referendum in Crimea would vote for Russian unification. The Crimean people just have to accept that political realities will never allow then to have a say in their political future.

[penultimate]

73. I believe all of the American Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico and should be given back

I also believe all of the old warsaw pact should be given to Mexico too. Maybe throw Canada in there too for good measure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. It was not the Gadsen purchase

But the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1849 which has language guarantees in the treaty. Why California could not make English the official language even after the ignorant citizens passed that a few decades ago. Never mind we have had pretty dickish policies over the decades.

After that, in Mexico (and the Southwest) the jokes on that fly.

[Xithras]

81. There is one fundamental difference between the two. Puerto Rico is a better comparison.

The Gadsden Purchase was uncontested Mexican territory sold to the United States and incorporated into our country as an integral part of the Arizona territory. Furthermore, its native population was neither Mexican nor American at the time, but was primarily comprised of Apache's and Comanche's.

Under the USSR, Crimea was administered by the Ukraine, but was never considered to be "Ukrainian". It was an extraterritorial acquisition handed over by a shared conqueror. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Crimea became a fully autonomous republic with its own parliament, prime minister, and constitution. Its people CHOSE to continue to be an oblast administered by Ukraine, while maintaining its own legal system and quasi-independence. It is part of Ukraine because the Crimean's CHOSE to insert a clause into the CRIMEAN constitution in 1991 that declared Crimea to be part of Ukraine. The Crimean's can choose to remove that clause, if they want.

A better comparison is Puerto Rico. It was a Spanish territory acquired by the United States after the surrender of the Spain during the Spanis-American War. Puerto Ricans have U.S. citizenship, but they also have their own government, their own constitution, and their own culture.

So the better analogy is this: If a Republican wins the next U.S. Presidential election, and Puerto Ricans decided that they no longer wanted to be a U.S. commonwealth and wanted to realign with Spain/Europe, would you support a Spanish led military intervention to free the island from America's grip?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

89. Actually...

Crimea's native population was neither ethnic Ukrainian nor Russian, but Tartar. Unfortunately, Stalin either deported or killed the Crimean Tartars after World War II, and only after Ukrainian independence did the Tartars begin to return to Crimea in substantial numbers (where they are still a minority.)

But going to your Puerto Rico analogy, fair enough. But the answer still has to clearly be no. Especially since there's been actual referendum by the Crimean people as to what they want. What we are dealing with is Russians coming in and deciding matters for themselves.

[Xithras]

103. The "native population" are the people who are born and reside there

FWIW, the actual "native" population of Crimea isn't Tatar either. Crimea was lightly settled by the Sarmatians (an Iranian people) until the Greeks moved in a couple thousand years ago. Since then it's been invaded and occupied by wave after wave of invaders (including the Tatars, who moved in during the middle ages), but it's "native" Greek population held on until 1778 when the Russian military forcefully deported them in the first wave of "Russification". The vast majority of the Tatar population actually fled the peninsula nearly 100 years later when the Crimean War laid the peninsula to waste, and the remaining population of Tatars (including the minority that returned after the war ended) faced persecution and deportation under Stalin.

This is why I don't like discussions about "natives". Who are the "natives" in Crimea? The nearby Ossetians are the closest relatives to the ancient Sarmatians who are arguably the true "natives". The deported Greeks who lived there for millenia? The Tatars who lived there for centuries? Or the Russians who have lived there since the 1800's? Which voice deserves more attention than the others?

It's foolish to determine "who owns what" based on thousand year old land claims. What matters is what the residents want today.

FWIW, my opinion is that both Russia and Ukraine should stay out of Crimea for now. Let them hold their referendum, and move forward based on the results of that vote. It can't be held legitimately while Russia is occupying the peninsula though.

[Democracyinkind]

84. Would Russia intervene?

[Crunchy Frog]

88. Totally BS analogy.

And no, that doesn't mean that I approve of Russia's behavior.

You can find many more relevant analogies in things that we've actually done.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

90. Again, it just goes to a basic premise.

Do you support foreign military invasions of countries, even when there are claimed justifications to do so? (And I know as Americans we know that one all too well.)

I'm glad you don't approve.

[Crunchy Frog]

134. Actually, if our country ever finds itself in a weak enough position

to get invaded like that, my opinion would probably be that we were getting everything that we had coming to us.

In my realistic view of the world, the concept of national sovereignty exists more in theory than in practice for most people and most nations.

[2banon]

91. Despite the edited disclaimer, I read this as a classic Straw Man...

Any act of aggression against the United States, on U.S. territory such as described in the OP, would be justifiably met with military defense.

Obviously.

The flow of logic in the scenario you paint calls for and demands military action. In the context of the events, it follows that military action against Russia for their acts of aggression is called for, despite your disclaimer.

I'm completely opposed to any implied call for U.S. intervention on this matter, regardless of my position on their actions.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

95. It would justifably met with military defense....from the United States as the violated country.

(In the context of the analogy, that is, not the actual situation unfolding in Ukraine).

Ukrainians have the right to fight back against any military incursion by Russia on their foreign soil, irrespective of ethnic makeup of Crimea.

This is totally different question from how we should view these foreign incursions from afar...and our base reaction to them. (Note: I am not saying military reaction. Just our emotional reaction)

Because yesterday here, I read several people claiming that Ukraine ought to just give up Crimea, because there are Ethnic Russians living there and Russia used to control it.

[2banon]

99. People are going to have mixed reactions partly based on their historical knowledge

or perspective.

Reiterating on principle, I oppose acts of aggression/invasions against people, nations "sovereign" or not.

I know that I am woefully uninformed of the historical backstory in that region, but I'm also aware that it cannot be explained with "black & white" factoids.

But even in the current geopolitical context, there's much more that we, people in the United States, need to understand.

Still, on it's face, I believe the majority of American's oppose, on principle Russia's actions.

My ultimate concern is, our collective principled opposition is used to foment or create the myth that the American People would approve of the next logical action.

That is to say: Ok, so it's established that we disapprove, now what ?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

102. I'm hoping isolation of Putin by the worldwide community.

True, he could possibly savor being the world's newest supervillian, but he might also step back. Wouldn't be the first time (Kruschchev).

[2banon]

105. Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crises

this needs to de-escalate... but as we know from history- the opportunities for war-hawks to advance misinformation/disinformation rises considerably, and can easily bring about extremely dangerous hair trigger responses and course of action..

All is needed is public support, easily manipulated vis a vis fomentation in the media.

[Maedhros]

94. I, for one, would pay good money to see Joe Arpaio deal with his new Mexican overlords. [n/t]

[oldhippie]

97. No. n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

98. Good analogy

[hlthe2b]

100. Depends....Would they take away Sarah Palin and her clan (now living in AZ)?

[treestar]

112. No, which is not to say it's the same

No forced Mexicanization, but then the "forcing" gives Russia even less excuse. They should just take those Russians back if they are really discriminated against.

Also our rule of law allows people the same rights regardless of their ethnic background.

[AnalystInParadise]

113. NO

The nation of Mexico only has a 25 year claim to Arizona 32 if you count the Gadsen Purchase. I do not believe the American Southwest belongs to Mexico at all, especially since Mexico itself revolted against its rulers in Spain.

I do not support, but understand the mentality of being asked to let go a piece of territory that has been yours for nearly a millenia.

But to answer the original question, no....Mexico has no right to any territory taken in the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

[dlwickham]

114. Arizona, New Mexico, and California no

but if they want Texas, I say good luck and God bless

maybe we can trade the Russians Texas for Ukraine

[Erose999]

117. I think we should just give Arizona back to Mexico. Tex-Ass too.

[Comrade Grumpy]

120. Only if they don't stop until they take Phoenix and turn Arpaio over to the Hague.

[alarimer]

125. Yes, if they'd take Joe Arpaio.

Though I doubt they'd want him.

[Warpy]

129. If the Brewer government went crazy enough to start shooting anyone with brown skin

on the off chance they were undocumented workers from Mexico, I think the response could be justified, although I'd expect the National Guard to be sent in first to cart everybody in state government with anything to do with the policy off to the funny farm.

I don't think Putin's show of strength in Crimea is justified because Svoboda has only been talking about ethnic cleansing, not acting on it. They still don't have enough support to act on it.

Should they start to act on it, Putin would have the world's support.

[Daninmo]

130. Well

Does the Apache, Navajo or any of the other tribes have a say in this?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

136. Do the Tartars?

Probably not.

[Vattel]

135. Oiga Mexico. Arizona es su hijo. Aqui, lo tiene! Viva Arizona y viva Mexico!!!

Pero Russia, pues, oiga Russia, usted es enorme. Usted no necesita Crimea. No toce Crimea!

[TheKentuckian]

137. Sure, let em have it. New management may be beneficial, the current folks are batshit.

[ecstatic]

140. Russia is only doing what the US has done.

Another country will have to lead the fight this time, until the US gets some kind of credibility back.

[ThoughtCriminal]

142. Before or after the NCAA Tournament bids?

I'd have to worry about how it would effect the Wildcat's seating.