Why won't the US military go in, now they have a bully their own size?

Why do people still think Russia is some sort of super power? It's a wreck of a country, with no real economy thanks to corruption, almost totally dependent on a couple of exports and even that gets siphoned off into the usual police state pastimes, like invading tiny unarmed countries at any opportunity. It's on its way to third world stagnation, if not outright collapse, and this latest imperialist venture will see Europe moving even further away from dependence on such an unstable and unpredictable supply of oil and gas. The ME doesn't need its goods, China is already so diversified in its energy supply sources they can easily do without Russia's, and there is no one else around to shake down with these juvenile stunts Putin is pulling. All he's left with is the hope his puny threats will lead the West to buy him off; not a good plan.

 

Except that dumb@ss here is claiming we haven't fought anybody in the last 40 years 'who could shoot back'. Well, that would include our own fight with the Afghans. So, if they couldn't 'shoot back' at us, they obviously couldn't 'shoot back' at the Russians, either. Try again.

 

Irrelevant, and a particularly lame attempt at deflection. Now answer the question.

 

Face it, your military is hopelessly inadequate in what counts-winning. Oh, except for the mighty forces of Grenada. That took some awesome skill.

 

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Another particularly lame attempt at deflection, which I'll take as an implicit concession of the point. But since we're on the subject, what wars have you won in the last 40 years?

 

We prefer not to get involved. There was that little skirmish in the South Atlantic, but fighting a bunch of unmotivated Argentine conscripts didn't really count. We leave warmongering to America. Unfortunately, as fellow NATO members, we're obliged through treaty to help you out in yours.

 

'After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.'

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

Go ahead, make our day.

But you Europeans led the charge into Libya (after we sanitized the airspace for you), we were 'leading from behind', remember? So I guess you still like to do a little warmongering, just to keep your hand in, so to speak.

 

Obama is doing exactly what liberals wanted. He is withdrawing the US from being the police of the world. And now we are seeing what happens when the world doesn't have police. Putin saw that we just allow AQ to topple governments one by one, so why wouldn't we allow him to topple whatever govt he wants to? Next will be China annexing islands. You guys want no police, you got it. Enjoy yourselves.

 

If you say so, the problem is not winning wars it is something called Nation Building, not the JOB of the military and should not be so.

 

Is that why the Russians pulled the arse of the Syrians out of the frying pan, because they thought we were bluffing, kinda like Saddam thought. Laugh away.

 

Because this is a European problem. Kind of reminds us of the person Neville chamberlain doesn't it. Europe's policy of appeasement all over again. What's the matter, Europe not big enough to handle it's own problems?? I was just on another thread that maintained that the U.S. was the biggest threat to world peace so let's see what the world can do without us, shall we?? As far as I'm concerned Obama needs to shut his mouth the Russia and allow Europe to take control of the situation. I'm all for pulling our military out of Europe alone with our financial aid and then sit back and listen to Europe squall.

- - - Updated - - -

then why isn't England invading????

 

As I said before, Snake, we pulled your English butt out of the crack you placed it in twice in the last century, now didn't we. And if you want to get nasty, when England was the largest Empire in the West we won our independence from you with nothing but a few farmers. Shall we talk about everything England has lost over the years??

"""{{{You can't even subdue a few thousand peasants armed with rusty Kalashnikovs in Afghanistan}}""

Now THAT's a REAL hoot. We got a lot farther than the whole of the USSR did when they went in in the 1980's now haven't we. And just think, the USSR didn't have to ship their supplies half a world away.

 

Let's see, "NEVER", they just apointed themselves as the world conqueror. Putin simply wants to put the old USSR back together and then continue with what they started. Once more, this a European problem, not a U.S. problem so get busy and quit complaining.

 

Russia has nukes. We don't mess with people who have nukes....

 

Oh, REALLY? Pray tell, who where we messing with in the cold war??

 

They didn't call it the cold war for nothing.

 

Actually it was Soviet Russia which contributed far more to victory in Europe than the USA. And tell me, exactly how "far" have you got in Afghanistan and what have you actually achieved? Have the Taliban given up yet? Where are your victory parades?

 

Why should we invade? Ukraine isn't a member of the European Union, and we owe it no support by treaty or otherwise.

 

Well, see it's like this; if you hadn't begun all those wars there would be no necessity for Nation Re-building. Anyway, what gives America the right to decide what's best for sovereign nations-like your imposition of what passes for 'democracy' on nations who have managed perfectly well without it for centuries.

 

Here's an interesting snippet:

'One of the most enduring Soviet threat stories-the alleged justification for the birth of NATO-was the coming Red invasion of Western Europe. If, by 1999, anyone still swore by this fairy tale, they could have read a report in The Guardian of London on newly declassified British government documents from 1968. Among the documents was one based on an analysis by the Foreign Office joint intelligence committee, which the newspaper summarised as follows:

The Soviet Union had no intention of launching a military attack on the West at the height of the Cold War, British military and intelligence chiefs privately believed, in stark contrast to what Western politicians were saying in public about the "Soviet threat".
"The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war or even limited war in Europe," a briefing for the British chiefs of staff-marked Top Secret, UK Eyes Only, and headed The Threat: Soviet Aims and Intentions-declared in June 1968.
"Soviet foreign policy had been cautious and realistic", the department argued, and despite the Vietnam war, the Russians and their allies had "continued to make contacts in all fields with the West and to maintain a limited but increasingly political dialogue with Nato powers".

Quoted from Rogue State, William Blum, London, 2006.

 

Vietnamese, Iraqis, Serbians, etc.? Why only go that far back? If you're going to draw up historical comparisons, why not Korean+China? Why not Japan+Germany? Oh, we were probably just bullying them because they couldn't shoot back?

Also, you've yet to show how any of those cases are even remotely similar.

 

if Bush was still in office we probably would of started another 10+ year war

 

Because earth planet is not a School... and we aren´t teen fighting to see who have the biggest one!!! A War between USA and Russia means the end of human specie...USA would fight a war by vital interest but never by Ukrainia... they know Ukrainia is in Russian national strategic zone. one thing is to play to the CIA coups and other very different game is the TOTAL WAR.

 

We did not start the war in Afganistan, they did. Iraq was a mistake and I never supported it.