Russia has not been communist for at least 20 years. Where have you been? If you are wrong on that, what else are you wrong about?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ukraine and the Discredited "Domino Theory"
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
This war has been planned for a long time. It goes back to at least 2014 when we overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in a coup. We were told Nato cannot have Ukraine as a member to put missiles in. Everyone knew it was Russia's red flag. Just like the US won't accept Russian missiles in Cuba or Chinese missiles in Mexico they don't want Nato (USA) missiles on their southern boarders that can hit Moscow in 5 minutes. Bidon and company are the warmongers, all to make profits off of war. You know, the Congressional military complex. Yes, we are fighting proxy war with Ukraine. Mostly Ukrainians are dieing, few Americans and Westerners are now. The Ukrainians are paying the price, and we will abandon them one day. They already have over 150,000 war dead.
Dictators like to expand their domain. Neighboring countries get invaded. History is very clear on this point. If you do not stop invaders they will keep on invading. This is the domino theory.
Was Russia stopped by the cut and run Dems when Russia invaded Crimea? Nope.
Did Russia then invade Ukraine? Yep.
Did North Korea invade South Korea? Yep.
Did North Viet Nam invade South Viet Nam? Yep
Did Germany invade country after country including Russia? Yep
Did a coalition of "respect borders" countries put arms in the way of Hitler's dominoes. Nope
I agree it is an open question of whether we should have engaged in Viet Nam. But what is not open is the question of how we engaged, as we had no exist strategy and were unwilling to interdict the North's supply from China and Russia. We do not know whether such a winning strategy would have initiated WWIII. Thus the merits of the argument we should not have engaged.
Now we are supplying arms to Ukraine to defeat Russia. Is this what we should be doing, or should we wait and see if Russia would then invade a NATO country? That is an open question. But our "just enough but not too much" supply from ourselves and NATO can only encourage Russia. They know that the Left in America will soon start the drum beat of cut and run.
Was Russia stopped by the cut and run Dems when Russia invaded Crimea? Nope.
Did Russia then invade Ukraine? Yep.
Did North Korea invade South Korea? Yep.
Did North Viet Nam invade South Viet Nam? Yep
Did Germany invade country after country including Russia? Yep
Did a coalition of "respect borders" countries put arms in the way of Hitler's dominoes. Nope
I agree it is an open question of whether we should have engaged in Viet Nam. But what is not open is the question of how we engaged, as we had no exist strategy and were unwilling to interdict the North's supply from China and Russia. We do not know whether such a winning strategy would have initiated WWIII. Thus the merits of the argument we should not have engaged.
Now we are supplying arms to Ukraine to defeat Russia. Is this what we should be doing, or should we wait and see if Russia would then invade a NATO country? That is an open question. But our "just enough but not too much" supply from ourselves and NATO can only encourage Russia. They know that the Left in America will soon start the drum beat of cut and run.
Last edited:
KenH
Well-Known Member
I had thought about mentioning that:
"Sen. John McCain (R‑AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right‐wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.
But McCain’s actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. As Ukraine’s political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring the anti‐Yanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5, she handed out cookies to demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.
The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking."
- rest at America's Ukraine Hypocrisy | Cato Institute
I might be wrong about supporting the Ukraine but I’m going to do it in the hope they win, take back their homeland and allow the west to decimate those Russian bastards just like the Romans distorted Carthage. They, well read about it if your unaware.
I understand completely. I was untill recently an unknowingly warmonger my self. Then I learned how we really treat the rest of the world. We missed nuclear catastrophy in the cold war what a blessing. Doesn't war with Russia just sound like a dumb idea? We don't like Putin because he is a strong leader and Russia has been very successful under him. The USA (Clint0n, bosh, 3b0m and bid0n) want a weak Russian puppet that we can exploit and carve up Russia to plunder its great resources. Don't believe me? When the Soviet union fell during Reagan we promised them we would not take advantage and expand Nato but starting clint0ns 2nd term we have done nothing but expand. We have Russia surrounded and almost contained. Any modern map of Nato shows it clearly. Please I beg you to hear this short video.
I could not see whether you agreed or disagreed with your reply.
1) Not engage and leave Ukraine to Russia
2) Engage providing the F-16, Abrams, long range missiles, etc.
3) Pussy foot in no man's land, bring maximum destruction and death to all concerned.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Not communist in the same way China is not. It is still one person rule in both countries no matter how you cut it.
And he is not a weak USA puppet. Nor the Chinese guy either.
Don't allow Ukraine to join NATO and put US missiles in Ukraine. Let them join the European union economicly but not a military alliance. Just like Russia has been saying for years.
Do not provide them with anything. They have no chance to win whatsoever. Were are fighting Russia to the LAST Ukrainian. Just to hurt and bleed and weaken Russia. Ukraine has lost and can never win. It has lost over a quarter million men and many more disabled wounded. What can a few tanks possibly do? Kill many more Ukrainians and possibly a few Russians? The Ukrainians can't reasonably fly f16s. They would be shot down instantly. Do you really know whats going on in Ukraine, or does your information come from the nightly news?
I think your view is to not engage and leave Ukraine to the Russians, and wait until Russia invades an existing NATO country. That might be the right choice. However the idea we cannot stop aggression using a military response is nonsense. I understand nuclear blackmail, where you slice of a small piece with impunity, because that is not worth risking nuclear war.
You misunderstand that document, or rather, at least what a declaration of war means. The use or placement of U.S. troops or the lending of war materiel does not require a declaration of war. For all of Western history where official declarations of war were practiced, this was not assumed:
Great Britain did not "declare War" on the Thirteen Colonies during the Revolution
The Dutch did not "declare War" on Great Britain before they sold weapons and gunpowder to the Revolutionaries.
France did not "declare war" on Britain before they permitted American privateers and blockade runners to dock at French ports for repair.
Britain DID threaten "declarations of war" with both countries if they did not cease and desist. They instructed their ambassadors/diplomats to deliver the messages.
This is the historical background behind the thinking of the framers of the Constitution.
The U.S. Congress never issued declarations of war to any Indigenous peoples it fought with. It never would have assumed it meaningful or necessary.
The United States never "declared war" on the Confederacy.
According to the logic of many here: it clearly should have.
According to the logic of many here: the "lend/lease" program should have been preempted by a declaration of war by Congress.
The United States never "declared war" on the barbary pirates.
Many who claim to cherish the Constitution insist we saddle ourselves with declarations of war in absurd circumstances.
This is a nonsensical standard which no nation in Western history has ever intended by Declarations of War.
A declaration of war is an historical and legal diplomatic term of art signifying a specific change in international relations.
It is not required to declare war any time The U.S. (or any world power frankly) deploys military units, troops, or supports with materiel another power.
I do not say this because I disagree with the prospect of leaving Ukraine to the Ukrainians or simply staying neutral in the fighting between Russia and Ukraine (where neither nation has "declared war" to my knowledge. I have no particular opinion accept that I lean towards leaving it to themselves to figure out.
I only say this because the "CONGRESS MUST DECLAR WAR"! crowd has been, for decades at least, misunderstanding what that meant to the framers of the Constitution and their intentions behind it.
Last edited:
KenH
Well-Known Member
First of all, the Congress is intended to set the policies of the United States government. The president is intended to execute the policies that the Congress set in place.
I am so tired of the myriad of executive orders that the United States government operates on these days, as the Congress has mostly shied away from setting policies and given that power to an all too eager executive branch for several decades now. Members of Congress are quite willing to allow the executive branch to make policies, sit back and, generally speaking, praise them if the president is of their major party or blast them if the president is of the other major party.
Congress should be the branch that directs U.S. foreign policy, as well as domestic policy, not the president.
Yes, I know there are not many minarchists like me around these days. And, like I said, I'm old, can be cantankerous, and I yell at clouds.
There is nothing about neutrality in this conflict. We, the USA, are fighting a proxy war with Russia. We will abandon Ukraine to its fate one day soon. We are using Ukraine to hurt Russia. It has no chance whatsoever to win. Never has. They have already lost well over 250,000 men. Americans, under the guise of NATO, target Russians. And kill Russians. We are at war with Russia. We are just using the Ukrainian people on the battlefield. We are the superpower. We are the aggressors. We want no competition. Ask Serbia, ask Iraq. Ask Libya, ask Syria. Ask Afghanistan. We lost Afghanistan and Syrian wars. Does anyone even care or acknowledge it? We will abandon the Ukrainians to their fate one day. The rest of the world See's what we are doing to Russia, and know that if the USA wins they are next. Bricks plus. Brazil, Russia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia. Plus others. Either the USA will continue its hegemony or it will be knocked back and Brics will stop it.
All that may be. I do not have a dog in this fight. I tend to agree that we should not be involved, but, I confess myself insufficiently informed on the current event to care to debate it. My post is only about the insistence that declarations of war must be issued to be involved in any capacity in any conflict.
I tend to agree... But that doesn't mean to be involved in a conflict in any capacity they must declare a war. That is the distinction I'm making.
Again, I agree.
Agreed, and, furthermore, if they want to be involved in helping out a percieved ally or potential one that should be largely their prerogative... It doesn't necessarily require a declaration of war, however.
I appreciate that, and I agree with the general political views expressed here: I just don't think that your generally correct views are grounded upon Congress's authority to issue declarations of war. Entering treaties, for instance, and funding potential conflicts etc... is also their perogative. Congress, for instance, passed the "lend-lease Act" which was hardly a declaration of war.
By way of example: If Congress funds a Presidential plan to send troops to Iraq or somewhere else like say, Tripoli during the Barbary Pirates war with some specific goals in mind, that is sufficient. We saw this in the first and second Gulf Wars. Congress doesn't have to fund those projects if it disagrees, or to issue an authorization for the President to use force. It did (rightly or wrongly) choose to do so:
Many people who disagreed with those decisions screamed that such actions were un-Constitutional because they would require a declaration of war. I disagree.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Well, certainly not according to the late Congressman Henry Hyde:
"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events and are no longer relevant to a modern society. Declaration of war is one of them. Your motion is inappropriate, anachronistic, and it isn't done anymore."
- U.S. Representative Henry Hyde, Oct. 3, 2002