If most of the world agrees putin is committing war crimes, why are we not doing more like actually confronting him with military force?

[Integrityrespec]

Should one man with nukes be able to hold the whole world hostage? What if he decides to invade poland, does the whole nuke thing just go out the window because poland is a part of nato?

At what point is it time to stop him?

Joe Biden!

 

[noonereal]

if canada or mexico wanted to attach itself to russia, we wouldn't invade either country.

Bullshit.

 

[noonereal]

Because our liberals in charge have never had the stomach for doing what needs to be done.

LOL

God Bless you folks, sincerely.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Because our liberals in charge have never had the stomach for doing what needs to be done.

Explain this. Joe wants to let millions of illegal immigrants come into the U.S. across our southern border. We have laws that are designed to prevent this but he ignores the laws and the subsequent risks that go along with that. It's ok to illegally come here, it's ok to bring crime and illegal drugs like fentanyl, it's ok to aid the coyotes as they make money on human trafficking. Where is joe on saving lives in Ukraine? Where is Joe on sending a message to Putin that this aggression will not stand. Stop now or face the consequences that you actions require.
Nope, Joe's OK with weak actions that really cost little in terms of potential danger to him. He's weak as a leader and certainly as the supposed leader of the free world. Tough to lead from behind Joe!

 

[Tettsuo]

I guess it depends on what you interpret as "we" in the title. I got the impression "we" meant NATO, not just the US.

Folks are blaming any inaction on Joe Biden as if the US was being attacked directly.

 

[Tettsuo]

What is your point. You are trolling now.

Here copied is the post you responded to:

Its actually the OP of this thread. To which you responded:
Ask the UK, France and Germany. It's in their backyards and they have to funds to fight if they want. The USA doesn't need to fight this war.

My point is clear. Ukraine is being attacked and America has zero obligation to fight with them. The US is currently doing the same as our NATO members and providing aid to Ukraine. The correct steps are being taken. Any escalation on our part would make no sense.

 

[Craig234]

Shhh, that's a part of american history we can't talk about because it might make someone feel badly that when we want something in a foreign country bad enough, we have no qualms using military force to get it, like bananas.

To be clear, our overthrowing democracy in Guatemala for the United Fruit Company to install a dictator wasn't about more bananas. It was to keep the land stolen for the company that the Dulles brothers had written the plan to steal as the company's law firm, with several members of the administration owning stock in the company. They were continuing to serve their client using the power of the US to install a dictatorship.

The land in question was not used by the company, and the government wanted some of the unused land to be available to poor Guatemalans.

The administration went to war against democracy, against a good president who was removed.

This is an area where JFK represented change, commenting 'if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich', as he tried to prevent the Cuban revolution from spreading.

 

[Craig234]

If a nato country is attacked then it gets defended no matter who the other country is or what they have ie nukes. That is the point of nato. Poland is part of nato, Ukraine is not

Here's how it breaks down.

- Russia decides to destroy the world: it can. Only way to prevent it is to eliminate nuclear weapons.
- Russia decides to attack NATO country: NATO fights them with non-nuclear weapons. This will not be deterred by the threat of nuclear war, because it's a 'firm line' which has been clearly drawn for adversaries. If Russia didn't care about escalating to nuclear war, see the first option.
- Russia decided to attack non-NATO countries. The US has decided not to provide security guarantees to the whole world. Since there is no security guarantee, the US recognizes that going to war with Russia risks escalation to nuclear war. The US recognizes that if it tries to extend security too far outside NATO, that can lead to escalation.

It's a very inadequate system, because nuclear war needs to be prevented. Nuclear powers are expected to act responsibly; Putin is not. Before this was, he could have said NATO was less than responsible expanding to his border, instead of disbanding when the USSR and the Warsaw Pact did.

 

[smallvoice]

Folks are blaming any inaction on Joe Biden as if the US was being attacked directly.

We didn't elect an old man to be inactive when he needed to be active. We got what we have, unfortunately, but the alternative wasn't much better.

 

[jnug]

My point is clear. Ukraine is being attacked and America has zero obligation to fight with them. The US is currently doing the same as our NATO members and providing aid to Ukraine. The correct steps are being taken. Any escalation on our part would make no sense.

We are not fighting with them. Your point became cloudy when you responded to a post that asked if POLAND, a NATO treaty member were attacked.

 

[brothern]

Explain this. Joe wants to let millions of illegal immigrants come into the U.S. across our southern border. We have laws that are designed to prevent this but he ignores the laws and the subsequent risks that go along with that. It's ok to illegally come here, it's ok to bring crime and illegal drugs like fentanyl, it's ok to aid the coyotes as they make money on human trafficking.

Sure. I can do that. The USA has a major labor shortage in the construction, agriculture and service industries. Jobs that most Americans are demonstrably hesitant to take. It's in the absolute and unapologetic interest of the government and American business to reap the benefits of undocumented immigrant labor — given that for businesses it's often at lower wage rate; and for the government it permits increased tax collections without inducing obligations to pay out social benefits (social security, unemployment, etc.).

The choice to enforce laws would wreck havoc on the absolute quality of our lifestyle. Even more so with this period of time being one of major supply chain shortages and constraints and inflationary pressures.

 

[holbritter]

Wasn’t there a security guarantee agreed to when Ukraine surrendered their nuclear weapons back in the mid 1990s?



Edit: Pretty good article from earlier this year, “assurance” and “guarantee” are not similar in any way?

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

Sad. Double speak and vagueness. How the hell can anyone trust any agreement or assurance? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I hate that the US was part of it.

 

[Torus34]

Should one man with nukes be able to hold the whole world hostage? What if he decides to invade poland, does the whole nuke thing just go out the window because poland is a part of nato?

At what point is it time to stop him?

The answer to the question posed in the topic heading rests upon the assumption it contains. That assumption may be false.

'Most of the world', if it refers to people, must take into account the fact that China and India combined include a huge number of people. Neither of those two countries have declared President Vladimir Putin to be a war criminal as of this writing.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[bluesmoke]

While on the topic of courts and crimes I would urge Americans to look at what passes for due process in Russia. The TV Producer that used a printed sign behind the on-line anchor as a protest against the war was pronounced guilty within hours of arrest having been denied benefit of counsel all the way up to her court appearance. Marina Ovsyannikova has been found guilty of organizing an illegal protest and fined 30,000 rubles (about $280). Of course what benefit is counsel in the Russian "Justice" system.

Will they charge her with additional crimes including those that carry 15 year prison terms for protesting the war? We don't know.

They certainly guarantee the right to a speedy trial.

 

[bluesmoke]

You can't be serious? Do you watch the news?

Neither you nor I have the authority to say what Putin has done is war crime, or what to do about it. I don’t know what you mean by “most of the world”, so I asked for clarity. Something you have a problem with providing by all evidence in posting between us on this and other thread. There are official bodies than can determine whether an action by others is a war crime or a crime against humanity, such as the International Criminal Court, by which there have been a few investigations resulting in arrest, conviction and sentencing. All of which takes a number of years.

What’s obvious is that you’re not serious enough about what you say, you don’t respect your own words, to do the necessary research to make a post that reflects knowledge of what you speak of.

Do you ever give a forthright answer to an honest question?

 

[VySky]

Sad. Double speak and vagueness. How the hell can anyone trust any agreement or assurance? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I hate that the US was part of it.

Do you feel the same way about the Iran deal?

 

[jnug]

Do you feel the same way about the Iran deal?

Deflection. If you want to ask him about the Iran deal start a new thread and ask the forum. You seem not to be averse to starting new threads.

 

[Hypothetical]

WE ARE...that does not mean NATO is. WE have nothing better to do.

they better be. They need to have military and political responses ready for every major situation way before something happens.

we should already be sending extra munitions an such to every Border Nato country next to russia and Ukraine.

if we are not , then that is a failure in strategic planning because such things do not happen on a moments notice.

 

[VySky]

Deflection. If you want to ask him about the Iran deal start a new thread and ask the forum. You seem not to be averse to starting new threads.

Oh. The reinforcements have arrived

 

[American]

Give him the Polish MiGs.

 

[VySky]

Give him the Polish MiGs.

Symbolic only.

 

[American]

Symbolic only.

It's what Zelensky wants.

 

[jnug]

they better be. They need to have military and political responses ready for every major situation way before something happens.

we should already be sending extra munitions an such to every Border Nato country next to russia and Ukraine.

if we are not , then that is a failure in strategic planning because such things do not happen on a moments notice.

The poster is asking if NATO is thinking about political or geopolitical contingencies to a NATO treaty country being attacked. There are no contingencies of that sort if a NATO treaty country is attacked assuming the country attacked invokes Article 5. There is particularly no contingencies for the only NATO treaty country to this date to have invoked Article 5 of the NATO Charter.......the United States of America.

 

[ataraxia]

Folks are blaming any inaction on Joe Biden as if the US was being attacked directly.

History shows that when aggressive nations are not nipped in the bud, the US does eventually get attacked directly. Countries, when they get rabid like that, don't just stop at taking over one or two countries.

 

[vegas giants]

History shows that when aggressive nations are not nipped in the bud, the US does eventually get attacked directly. Countries, when they get rabid like that, don't just stop at taking over one or two countries.

I see no evidence for this claim