Well the US will just have to invade all of them then, to not do just that is a sign of great weakness.Too bad none of the EU governments have the balls to protect one of their own but, as usual look to the US to do the heavy lifting.
yawn...
The last time i was in Alaska, I had excellent borshch. Are you sure it is not Russian already?.
Umm. . . in what way is Ukraine not a "weaker 3rd world nation?"Blah blah blah....
What's Obama gonna do next? Count to three?
Ok Russia..... 1........ 2....... 2 1/4.......
This whole thing was over the moment Russia moved the first soldier across the border. The rest is just theatrics leading to the inevitable.
The thing is, Russia will use force if so desired. The US only uses force against weaker 3rd world nations they think they can take over.... And they couldn't even do that right.
The US, EU, NATO doesn't have the gusto.
Blah blah blah....
What's Obama gonna do next? Count to three?
Ok Russia..... 1........ 2....... 2 1/4.......
This whole thing was over the moment Russia moved the first soldier across the border. The rest is just theatrics leading to the inevitable.
The thing is, Russia will use force if so desired. The US only uses force against weaker 3rd world nations they think they can take over.... And they couldn't even do that right.
The US, EU, NATO doesn't have the gusto.
The thing is, Russia will use force if so desired. The US only uses force against weaker 3rd world nations they think they can take over.... And they couldn't even do that right.
Umm. . . in what way is Ukraine not a "weaker 3rd world nation?"
Whatever you say Prax...
Oooops!
Need a history book still it seems. Does your wife let you read?
You said Russia attacks whom it pleases, and the U.S. only attacks weaker third world nations. You seemed to be contrasting the two. If you look at Soviet/Russian history since WWII, I think you will be hard pressed to find anything it ever attacked that wasn't either a weaker third world nation or a weaker second world nation.So the US should invade Ukraine? You either didn't read my post properly or simply lost me with your reply.
Can't think of a reason to. Replacing Thugocracy X with Thugocracy Y doesn't seem to me like the best use of our resources.Yeah the US could invade Ukraine, but in most of the West's eyes, they're the good guys.
You think we had the means to take on Russia head on before 2001?My point is that the US doesn't currently have the means or the will to take Russia head on. Go after some small 3rd world country like Iraq or Afghanistan? They did before but probably won't again for a long time after those two invasions went so well...... They'd have an even harder time with a nation like Russia.
If you think military action and nothing are the only two alternatives, you're correct.All the US can do right now is thump their chest and use idle threats of inaction.
Probably a good thing, all things considered.The EU wouldn't be able to get one soldier to pick up a pistol without months of debates, bickering, votes and finger pointing over who will send who where and how many.
Youi say that like it's a bad thing.Ukraine isn't protected by NATO, so that's off the table.
And it's honestly none of Canada's business, so the Canadian government will just get on their soap box once or twice and sign a few things to make it look like they give a damn.
China will just pat Russia on the back for whatever they do.
And Australia is currently just sitting back on the couch eating popcorn & watching the soap opera unfold.
Ukraine will simply and gradually merge back into the Neo Soviet Union, the police and military will continue to defect, more and more land will shift into Russia's hands and the farce of a government that took over will disband and get an E- for a dismal effort.
No problem with them coming in, start the guns up and getting them back out is going to be more than impossible.Be kinda funny if Obama sent the Sixth Fleet into the Black Sea. See how fast the Republicans can go from screaming "weakling!" to screaming "dictator!"
You said Russia attacks whom it pleases, and the U.S. only attacks weaker third world nations. You seemed to be contrasting the two. If you look at Soviet/Russian history since WWII, I think you will be hard pressed to find anything it ever attacked that wasn't either a weaker third world nation or a weaker second world nation.
Can't think of a reason to. Replacing Thugocracy X with Thugocracy Y doesn't seem to me like the best use of our resources.
You think we had the means to take on Russia head on before 2001?
If you think military action and nothing are the only two alternatives, you're correct.
Probably a good thing, all things considered.
Youi say that like it's a bad thing.