Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the US provide 'lethal aid' to Ukraine?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should the US provide 'lethal aid' to Ukraine?

    Since this question is being debated in Congress currently, I thought it worthwhile to ask y'all what you think, and where you stand on the issue.

    Top Republican, House Dem back lethal aid to Ukraine

    WASHINGTON The top Republican and Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday called for $1 billion in lethal defensive aid to Ukraine as Congress increased pressure on President Barack Obama to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian-backed rebels.

    Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, the panel's chairman, and Democratic Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state introduced legislation that would provide training, equipment and lethal defensive weapons to the national security forces of Ukraine through Sept. 30, 2017 to help secure "its sovereign territory against foreign aggressors."

    "It seems Russia has decided to go back to the Cold War," Smith told reporters at a news conference, citing Russia's takeover of Crimea and push into eastern Ukraine. The imposition of economic sanctions "has not at all changed President (Vladimir) Putin's calculus."

    Thornberry, who joined senators at a defense conference in Munich this past weekend, said "there's a huge amount of bipartisan support to allow the Ukrainians to defend themselves."

    Obama is considering sending lethal aid to Ukraine's military. The president spoke Tuesday with the leaders of both Russia and Ukraine, one day before they meet for talks aimed at reaching an elusive peace deal.

    The White House said Obama reiterated U.S. support for Ukraine's sovereignty in his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and emphasized the importance of reaching a diplomatic resolution.
    Stars and Stripes - Full Article
    39
    Yes
    35.90%
    14
    No
    46.15%
    18
    Unsure
    17.95%
    7

  • #2
    Would Obama giving a speech be a form of "Lethal aid" to Ukraine in as much as it likely would lead to the nation's collapse?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Would Obama giving a speech be a form of "Lethal aid" to Ukraine in as much as it likely would lead to the nation's collapse?
      Honestly, I find his (prepared) speeches to be well delivered and interesting. I disagree with most of his politics, but he's a charismatic individual who knows how to deliver a speech.

      But when he's speaking off the cuff... well, then like his predecessor you start to get the mistakes and errors and pauses that make listening to him either very exciting or very boring.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        Honestly, I find his (prepared) speeches to be well delivered and interesting. I disagree with most of his politics, but he's a charismatic individual who knows how to deliver a speech.

        But when he's speaking off the cuff... well, then like his predecessor you start to get the mistakes and errors and pauses that make listening to him either very exciting or very boring.
        What I'm saying is that he may give a good speech but he fails to deliver on the goods afterwards and in a situation like Ukraine that could lead to the country being over run or the government overthrown through his talk but lack of follow up and action.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          What I'm saying is that he may give a good speech but he fails to deliver on the goods afterwards and in a situation like Ukraine that could lead to the country being over run or the government overthrown through his talk but lack of follow up and action.
          Obama's "red line" in Syria showed that he lacked the willpower to use military force to back up the staunchest of his protests. At this point, I think Putin is calling his bluff - I think Russia knows that as long as the conflict stays ambiguous and messy then the US will see little reason to get involved, despite the harsh language.

          In the end, the US has little to lose by keeping up sanctions and just condemning Russia for its aggression. Obama might just end up trying to bluff again.

          But then, the GOP might also shoot down the support as well. After all, they benefit from less spending and a more unstable foreign policy situation.

          Comment


          • #6
            There's only one kind of 'good' commie.
            Credo quia absurdum.


            Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • #7
              I voted yes, but it should have been done month's ago.
              Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

              Comment


              • #8
                NO!
                Those bone-heads are sitting on thousands of tanks that they can't start and god-knows what else, Russia scooped up half their air force in the Crimea because they just parked them and forgot about them for 20 years.

                I ain't no friend of the Russians, but I don't see how freebies will help the Ukriane get their act together.
                I'm also hearing about how hundreds of thousands of their young men skipped out over the border to avoid the Draft.

                Thanks but NO thanks.
                "Why is the Rum gone?"

                -Captain Jack

                Comment


                • #9
                  No, the USA should not provide lethal aid to Ukraine.

                  IMO, while the Russia/USA relations could improve, it is IMO considerably offensive to hear folks suggest for example that there are similarities between Putin and Hitler(what a disgrace this is IMO to the allied side of WW2) Its just to much IMO when folks suggest that Putin is like Hitler, it would be one thing if there were concentration camps in Russia, or if there were tens of thousands of Russians marching in unison to forum a swastika like there was back in Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was a place where the so called Aryan race was propped up, and so called inferior races were rooted out, todays Russia is not similar to Nazi Germany.

                  There were some problems in the past with the treatment of religion under the old Soviet System in Russia, but freedom of religion in Russia certainly has improved since the "old days" As have civil rights here in the USA for blacks, there was once a time when blacks generally had to go to separate water fountains right here in the United States.

                  Considering that most modern day Russians are peaceful people, and that Russia is a major economic player in the world, I feel that the USA should try and pursue more positive relations with Russia. Americans should talk about how Russia is full of nice people.

                  It is also important that Russians themselves(surely plenty already do) speak up about the benefits that the USA has brought to the world. Russians themselves should talk about how most Americans are peaceful people.

                  Imagine actually wanting to use the USA military against Russia(as in US pilots bombing Russians or US troops on the ground in Russia) that IMO would be a disaster for the world. The Ukraine situation is something that one cant use as a means of making Russia the "bad guy".
                  Last edited by Taieb el-Okbi; 11 Feb 15, 18:13.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    NO!
                    Those bone-heads are sitting on thousands of tanks that they can't start and god-knows what else, Russia scooped up half their air force in the Crimea because they just parked them and forgot about them for 20 years.

                    I ain't no friend of the Russians, but I don't see how freebies will help the Ukriane get their act together.
                    I'm also hearing about how hundreds of thousands of their young men skipped out over the border to avoid the Draft.

                    Thanks but NO thanks.
                    Don't you mean "Thanks, but no tanks?"

                    Yes, I know. I won't quit my day job.
                    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                      NO!
                      Those bone-heads are sitting on thousands of tanks that they can't start and god-knows what else, Russia scooped up half their air force in the Crimea because they just parked them and forgot about them for 20 years.

                      I ain't no friend of the Russians, but I don't see how freebies will help the Ukriane get their act together.
                      I'm also hearing about how hundreds of thousands of their young men skipped out over the border to avoid the Draft.

                      Thanks but NO thanks.
                      I voted no for pretty much the same reasons.

                      I'm all for poking Putin with a stick, but with the Ukraine, it would be wasted money when we can't afford it.
                      ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                      BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                      BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No.
                        Tanks for the Kurds,yes.
                        Starting the 3rd WW,no.
                        Imagine Russia sending T90 to Mexico after a clash at the US frontier.
                        That rug really tied the room together

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
                          No.
                          Tanks for the Kurds,yes.
                          Starting the 3rd WW,no.
                          Imagine Russia sending T90 to Mexico after a clash at the US frontier.
                          This sums that up pretty much...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
                            No.
                            Tanks for the Kurds,yes.
                            Starting the 3rd WW,no.
                            Imagine Russia sending T90 to Mexico after a clash at the US frontier.
                            Russia wouldn't have to. American firearms are flooding back over the border to sustain a conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives - far, far more than have died in Ukraine.

                            In fact, if Russian tanks helped end the bloodshed, I'd support it.
                            Last edited by Daemon of Decay; 12 Feb 15, 00:59.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am unsure. It would be nice just because Putin says not to do it. But Ukraine all ready has plenty of weapons so that's not there issue.
                              you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                              CPO Mzinyati

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X