If Russia moves deeper into Ukraine, what should our response be? n/t

[Skip Intro]

[hrmjustin]

1. .

and pray.

[rdharma]

2. If frogs had wings........

....BOOOO! They would be very scary but wouldn't bump their butts on landing.

[bemildred]

3. BENGHAZI!!! nt

[CreekDog]

13. LOL

Skip Intro (19,207 posts)

11. Hillary should testify. Rice should explain why she said what she said.

And who told her to say it.

There should be transparency.

That video, which at the time was called a "film," took center-stage as the reason for the attacks in Benghazi, when those inside the admin evidently knew otherwise. It seems the American people were misled in the process.

I'm a big fan of Hillary.

I'm a bigger fan of the truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=251184

[Cali_Democrat]

15. LOL

I'm shocked the OP would beat that Benghazi drum.

[Skip Intro]

16. LOL

https://www.google.com/search?q=creekdog+stalker&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[CreekDog]

27. so this proves you frequently call me a stalker?

[Skip Intro]

28. Oh, plenty besides me, CreekDog, as that link shows.

Most of DU knows exactly what you are, Creek. That's why so many refuse to interact with you.

[CreekDog]

40. really, where are the people refusing to interact with me here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024675673

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024185942

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024569753

can you tell me then what all the recommends and replies to these threads were if everyone is just avoiding me?

or do you mean the gungeoners are avoiding me? well, not really, they follow me around and accuse me of stalking them.

[CreekDog]

54. most know who you are

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023756389

[morningfog]

4. Finger wagging.

[Cha]

18. That's just an opinion of someone who doesn't know what's actually happening

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685574

Or would you prefer the McCain approach?

[morningfog]

20. They'll return "when the situation stabilizes"

The sanctions will not result in Russia undoing the Crimea annexation. That's the bottom line.

US military force should never even enter the discussion.

[1000words]

5. Disgust and outrage ...

which will immediately give way to an awkward, uneasy feeling of hypocrisy.

[geek tragedy]

6. repeal Obamacare! nt

[Fawke Em]

7. Nothing.

I'm tired of playing the world's policeman without the benefit of anyone else's taxes (including those of our 1 percent).

[moondust]

8. Ask Europe.

I think they have a lot more at stake than the U.S. and would know better what's possible.

[CreekDog]

9. that worries me actually and I don't know

though I think worldwide sanctions should be tried.

[Skip Intro]

10. What is the worst sanctions can do to Russia? Should there be a military response instead?

I mean, if the invasion is underway, we have a window to fly in and engage the invaders. Should we do that? In the name of freedom and sovereignty? Should we be part of a NATO military response? Would anything less seem like a green light?

Is the reality that we're just powerless in the situation?

Do we talk big and let it happen, or act with strength to stop it?

It really is a big deal with big implications.

The world will see a dominant force emerge from this conflict, and it will be Russia, or the USA/West. The actual world order could change. Worst case, and I pray this doesn't happen, a world war could be sparked.

Dangerous, scary situation. And the world, for the moment, looks to us.

[CreekDog]

11. thanks Senator McCain

why try sanctions when we can just start World War 3?

i should have known better than to encourage you by responding to your thread.

[Skip Intro]

14. Will not mistake you for a sincere person again, CreekDog. n/t

Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 03:49 AM - Edit history (2)

[CreekDog]

26. Hey Skeeter, I give you the same sincerity you give me

https://soundcloud.com/rockymountainmike/obama-derangement-syndrome

[morningfog]

21. Out military has NO role here.

Why should it even be asked whether we are "powerless" here? That is the wrong question.

The question should be, what threat does any of this have on the people of the US? None? Okay, then use whatever diplomatic means are available to express our discomfort for the actions, and get back to our own business.

[Skip Intro]

30. Just wondering what the possible reactions could be.

I think American troops facing Russian troops on a battlefield would be a nightmare. But then today you have Biden saying we will defend our allies. So you know the subject of a military response is on the table in some fashion. I mean, I think there's a realistic chance Russia will move in to Ukraine beyond Crimea. And we will have to respond in some way. I think asking how is a valid question.

[morningfog]

33. Biden said we would defend our NATO allies, which is the point of NATO and not a statement of

a new policy. Ukraine is not in NATO, so his "warning" really doesn't change anything. There is no military response on the table for Ukraine.

If Russia decides to move into Ukraine, we are not obligated to get involved, nor should we.

[Skip Intro]

41. Not saying we should or shouldn't, but surely all options are being discussed

at higher levels of our government and others. Other options are sanctions etc. Should we impose sanctions? If we have no obligation to Ukraine, why should we respond at all, in any way?

[morningfog]

43. What are sanctions going to do other than hurt the people?

Does anyone here, or anywhere, think that US and EU sanctions will cause Russia to go "dang, I guess we better give Crimea back up. Almost had it!" It's laughable. Sanctions will not undo the annexation. Sanctions won't stop Russia from moving further into Ukraine either. But, I don't think that is going to happen anyway. I don't think that is in the plans at all.

[Skip Intro]

44. Thank you. I agree with most of that.

Sanctions likely will only hurt the people. Military action would be scary as hell. But I am not so sure Russia doesn't have its sights set on all of Ukraine. And if it does, and moves against Ukraine, with sanctions being a bad response and military action being a worse response, we get back to my original question - how do we respond? Or do we not respond at all? And what are the implications of that?

[morningfog]

45. I think our response should be going to the UN,

publicly denouncing the actions and let the people of Ukraine sort it out. It is an internal issue. The sooner the US learns to stay out of these kinds of situations the better.

[CreekDog]

49. oh come on, you're badmouthing anything but military intervention

and now you claim not to take a position?

what is the purpose of this post?

do you actually not have an opinion or are you afraid to post that opinion here?

you say you're not taking a position, that's bullshit:

Skip Intro (19,220 posts)
10. What is the worst sanctions can do to Russia? Should there be a military response instead?

I mean, if the invasion is underway, we have a window to fly in and engage the invaders. Should we do that? In the name of freedom and sovereignty? Should we be part of a NATO military response? Would anything less seem like a green light?

Is the reality that we're just powerless in the situation?

Do we talk big and let it happen, or act with strength to stop it?

It really is a big deal with big implications.

The world will see a dominant force emerge from this conflict, and it will be Russia, or the USA/West. The actual world order could change. Worst case, and I pray this doesn't happen, a world war could be sparked.

Dangerous, scary situation. And the world, for the moment, looks to us.

[Blue_Tires]

48. I'm not saying we should, but I do wonder

if there was some behind-the-scenes, "we got your back" deal made if the shit hits the fan...

[geek tragedy]

29. Bill Kristol couldn't have said it better. nt

[Skip Intro]

32. Wow, namecalling in place of thoughtful discussion. Good job, gt.

Your reputation is safe.

[geek tragedy]

34. your reputation is stronger than ever.

I mean, if the invasion is underway, we have a window to fly in and engage the invaders. Should we do that? In the name of freedom and sovereignty? Should we be part of a NATO military response? Would anything less seem like a green light? Is the reality that we're just powerless in the situation?

Do we talk big and let it happen, or act with strength to stop it?

It really is a big deal with big implications.

The world will see a dominant force emerge from this conflict, and it will be Russia, or the USA/West. The actual world order could change. Worst case, and I pray this doesn't happen, a world war could be sparked.

Because, of course, invading Ukraine would instantly elevate Russia over North America and Europe and China, despite the fact its GDP is smaller than Italy's or Brazil's.

Unless we BOMB.

[Skip Intro]

37. Do you not think the US and allies are askiing those questions?

Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you think they're all sitting around in the fog you seem to be in, refusing to consider all possibilities?

Examining an issue and being thoughtful about it, and exploring and evaluating possible scenarios, is clearly beyond your capabilities.

Don't you have an ACA thread to troll, maybe make fun of somebody's health care situation?

[geek tragedy]

39. No, they are not considering getting into a war with Russia in Ukraine.

Even fuckstick McCain isn't saying that's on the table. Only extremists like Kristol think it's on the table.

Even the bellicose nutters in the Bush administration realized that re: Georgia.

[CreekDog]

42. Why don't you take being called "Bill Kristol" as a compliment?

based on your posts about Benghazi and now the Ukraine, it would seem the comparison is apt.

[The Magistrate]

12. No One Is Going To Go To War With Russia, Sir

If Ukraine is invaded and fights, it will fight alone, certainly during the 'conventional war' phase of the thing. Weapons might be supplied, but no more. The various nuclear arsenals, not only of Russia and the United States, but also of France and England, will ensure that.

A Russian invasion of Ukraine which succeeds in the conventional phase will certainly rear up a serious partisan resistance, and this very likely would receive serious assistance, a good portion of it from other countries which were formerly under Soviet and Russian domination. There is real longstanding hatred there.

A guerrilla war in the center of Europe would be something very disturbing all around, very bad for business, and a serious drain on Russia, which likely cannot really afford the costs of such a venture.

The proper response to a Russian military incursion into Ukraine proper would be serious economic sanctions; cessation of most trade, seizure of assets, isolation from banking and financial networks.

The thing must come at a price.

[Cha]

19. thanks for your thoughtful response, TM.. this looks like what exactly it is..

"The proper response to a Russian military incursion into Ukraine proper would be serious economic sanctions; cessation of most trade, seizure of assets, isolation from banking and financial networks."

[CreekDog]

50. this OP is a thinly veiled attempt to cast the USA as weak under Obama

but why should we be surprised? it's the basic PR strategy of the Republican party.

consider the source.

[The Magistrate]

58. It Is A Legitimate Question, Sir

And I do not accept your characterization of the O.P., a former moderator here.

[CreekDog]

59. I treated the OP initially as a legitimate question

It was upon reading the subsequent posts by the author that my questions arose. Sadly. I thought Lindsday Graham could have typed some of the subsequent posts.

[Skip Intro]

60. Thank you, Magistrate. n/t

[amandabeech]

63. A long-term response would be to help the Europeans

reduce or end their dependence on Russian gas and oil. It would be a particular problem for Germany.

Of course, if we were to sell to Europe, we would either be under forced conservation here or go even more madly into fracking here, which is not something that many here would want to do.

That's assuming that Russia won't then be able to sell to other markets, particularly in eastern or southern Asia.

[Bonobo]

17. Tough blustery talk on an online forum!!!

Plus finger-pointing at people that are not sufficiently outraged over the reappearance of Hitler!!!

[Katashi_itto]

22. Buy T-Shirts, "Watch Keeping up the the Kardasians"

If it isn't a 3rd world Military we are hitting, then we wont do anything.

Which is the proper response.

[B Calm]

23. We could start rebuilding our infrastructure. .

[reformist2]

24. Hyperventilate even more?

[GliderGuider]

25. Perhaps this?

Or perhaps this?

Or even this.

[JackRiddler]

31. Who do you mean by "we"?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. Excellent question. nt

[Skip Intro]

64. The US. The West. What else? n/t

[JackRiddler]

65. Neither of these are clear-cut categories.

The government, its military, and the establishment these support including the corporate players are not a "we" that a democratic people should employ as though it is self-evident. My we is in the street outside these institutions, usually, calling for their radical reform or sometimes abolition. It may not be your we.

"The US" is way too big for a self-evident we (though it may be appropriate if you define what you mean). And "The West"? Really?

These are the constructs that nationalist conflicts require. Think of all the Ukrainians backing the coup d'etat and thinking, "that's us," or the Russians backing the invasion and thinking, "We have taken possession of Crimea." That's bullshit, that's why we have this situation in the first place: too much We and They.

I do not favor interventionist strategies based on military presence or covert action of any kind.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Invade Andorra?

[JackRiddler]

36. Good one.

[truebrit71]

38. Nothing.

Let the Euro's figure it out.

[sakabatou]

46. Tougher sanctions

Ones that have been floated.

[magical thyme]

47. a stern phone call. and more sanctions

that hopefully won't hurt our 1%ers as much as theirs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. None. We should not have supported fringe groups to bring about a coup to begin with.

We need our claws out of there. We cause damage wherever we go. We need to stop.

[Puzzledtraveller]

53. zilch

[seveneyes]

55. It depends on why they do it. n/t

[Redford]

56. Maybe we should of voted for Hillary

She would not put up with this crap.

[Skip Intro]

57. Should have.

Not should of. Should have.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

[Redford]

61. Policing English must be so tiresome

I know it tiresome for me to have to worry about other people's pet peeves.

[Skip Intro]

62. Wouldn't know.

I don't really do that, pretty much, at all. That particular, "should of," caught my eye though. I had seen it recently elsewhere. "Should of," makes no sense. "Should have," or "Should've," is what you actually mean. Maybe the spoken "should've" has been construed to be written "should of," but still, that is incorrect as the words "should" and "of" only pair if "should" is followed by a phrase that starts with "of," as in "...he should, of course, blablabla."

No need to worry about my pet peeves. I mean, that whole "should of" thing just kinda screams to me, and I replied when I saw it. Thought it might possibly spark a cordial exchange. Didn't mean to cause you any stress.