Russia 'invades' Ukraine

Let Poland, France, Germany, and Great Britain fix the mess they created with their little proxy war against the Bolsheviks.

 

Why should we spend our taxpayers' dollar fighting a war that has nothing to do with us?

 

That's what America does. Always has to stick our fingers in other people's cookie jar.

 

taxpayers wouldn't have the income to pay without our perceived callous foreign policy

 

^^^ thats why Min wage is rising......

 

He wants Sevastopol. This is the chance to have complete control over the port and he knows Ukraine "probably" wont risk mass casualties to stop the taking of the port.
That is a strong "probably".

 

We will see what happens when the ultimatums deadline comes tonight

 

So i assume the next move would be on Putin. Will he advance or not?

 

"What Happens If Russia Refuses to Fly U.S. Astronauts?"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...-russia-refuses-to-fly-us-astronauts-16555991

 

completely saw this coming, remember Ossetia? think the bear is done hibernating

 

Here's Henry K's opinion, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

 

and here is an interesting take on the whole ordeal, it's all about the money,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/13/inside-china-why-putins-intervention-in-ukraine-is/

 

usa makes the case that if a region of a nation is intent on seceding, it should do so thru the organizational body that governs it currently.

ie: crimea should goto Ukraine's highest government legislative body to petition for its independence from Ukraine first. this is why the usa is saying it wont recognise Crimea secession.

there is a valid point to this as it allows for there to be a discussion of terms of such a separation if it seem inevitable, as opposed to a potentially violent and contentious rift. forming. (settle things like trade agreements, debts & tax collection, police & military resources, etc)

the only problem with usa having that is the Obama administration did something that makes this response completely hypocritical on its own...

The response to Honduras in 2009.

In this scenario, the president of Honduras at the time made a bid to put a referrendum out to allow himself to run for another term as president. the only problem is since the last Hondurian revolution, they wrote it into their constitution that there would NEVER be a path for a president to be re-elected to avoid the dictatorships of the past.

the supreme court of honduras an the legislative body both slapped down the presidents multiple attempts and began to take action against the president. The judicial body ordered the millitary to remove and forcibly deport him for his transgressions against their constitution, but they didn't have a system in place to formally charge the president, ie impeach him. their constitution just has an article that loosely states any attempt to change succession law will result in a dismissal from office.

based on that reason, the Obama administration dismissed the legitimacy of this action as a "military coup," even tho the military was acting at the instruction of the judicial body and not its own, nor did it retain power after his removal.

So the Obama administration, even when the stars aligned according to the Honduras's own constitution to eject the president, they dismissed it. How can they now possibly legitimately claim that the Crimean action requires the central government of Ukraine to recognise it, when the Obama administration wouldn't recognise a clearly constitutional action inside the central government of Honduras?

on that alone (nevermind other foreign policy blurbs of the last 20 years), the US basically has zero moral credibility on the matter and only has relevance because of its financial ties...