Ukraine Expects US & European Military Help If War With Russia Starts - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;44273189]Hahahaha. No. Ukraine doesn't have anywhere near enough oil for us to get involved in your bullshit.[/QUOTE] Go look at how much oil the USA gets from Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll save you the trouble: it's none On the bright side. The very bright side. If this descends into something nuclear, I'm going to be the first to go. I live near 2 USAF bases and a Naval base that one nuke can take out. It's been real, FP

[QUOTE=seano12;44273204]I'll join up immediately if it happens. We all need to do our part you know.[/QUOTE] haven't you been pro Putin anti american in the last 3 SH threads on Crimea... if it turns into a shooting war, the west better be ready to put boots on the ground in a matter of hours a war there would only last a few days maybe a week at best [editline]18th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mebit;44273534]If the US didn't get seriously involved in Syria, then they won't get actually seriously militarily involved in Ukraine. No oil. No assistance.[/QUOTE] Syria is a 15 sided fight involving everybody who hates us, its literally just a massive powder keg if any foreign forces walk in there they will be attacked by Assad, the Muslim extremists, the FSA and any of the other nu!erous splinter factions. we had a very small window of action in Syria and we blew it a year ago, now its clear that it is an internal conflict a Ukraine v Russia war is clear cut 2 sided

[QUOTE=Mebit;44273534]If the US didn't get seriously involved in Syria, then they won't get actually seriously militarily involved in Ukraine. No oil. No assistance.[/QUOTE] Then why aren't we intervening whole hog in Venezuela? They seem to meet the checklist: - Anti-American Government - Angry Citizenry - Large Supply of Oil - Semi-Socialist Economy Why haven't we set foot there? Why isn't half of South America "Liberated"? If you're gonna start with this logic, [I]back it up.[/I]

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;44273369]Well, if they did have nukes, Russia wouldn't touch that with a hundred mile stick :v:[/QUOTE] too bad Ukraine did the sensible thing and gave Russia back its nukes, now Russia is threatening Ukraine indirectly with them

[QUOTE=Squad1993;44273415]*US gets involved* DAMN YOU WARMONGERING, OIL-HUNGRY BASTARDS *US doesn't get invovled* DAMN YOU LAZY, FAT, USELESS AMERICANS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES.[/QUOTE] Except, this is a war you have a legitimate reason to be in, you have a president claiming illegal breach of sovereignty, and a very, very specific treaty saying the U.S. and U.K. MUST intervene. I'd be interested if anyone can point to legitimate reasons as to why the U.S. invaded Afghan and Iraq.

This is a tough decision for the US really They either, go fight the Russians alongside the Ukrainians which could escalte quickly out of hand and be the sole Country to blame or they sit at home and ponder, get yelled at by the world and then try and justify why they didn't

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44273912]This is a tough decision for the US really They either, go fight the Russians alongside the Ukrainians which could escalte quickly out of hand and be the sole Country to blame or they sit at home and ponder, get yelled at by the world and then try and justify why they didn't[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/qFqrUN.gif[/IMG] This is what waiting gets us.

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;44273862]Except, this is a war you have a legitimate reason to be in, you have a president claiming illegal breach of sovereignty, and a very, very specific treaty saying the U.S. and U.K. MUST intervene. I'd be interested if anyone can point to legitimate reasons as to why the U.S. invaded Afghan and Iraq.[/QUOTE] I keep hearing about that treaty, yet I haven't seen it and don't know what to google to find it. could you link it?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44273912]This is a tough decision for the US really They either, go fight the Russians alongside the Ukrainians which could escalte quickly out of hand and be the sole Country to blame or they sit at home and ponder, get yelled at by the world and then try and justify why they didn't[/QUOTE] That's not a tough decision! :v:

[QUOTE=Hotpocket321;44274100][IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/qFqrUN.gif[/IMG] This is what waiting gets us.[/QUOTE] Thank you for using a cartoon to emulate this situation

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44273499]Have you considered that these might be different people?[/QUOTE] That's true, but it doesn't make it any less exhausting or irritating.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;44274108]I keep hearing about that treaty, yet I haven't seen it and don't know what to google to find it. could you link it?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances[/url]

[QUOTE=frozensoda;44274108]I keep hearing about that treaty, yet I haven't seen it and don't know what to google to find it. could you link it?[/QUOTE] Ukraine has a semi membership in NATO, the treaty in question was the one that allowed them to be a semi member of NATO, it stipulated that they could request NATO aid. had they been full NATO they would have been able to get full military assistance, basically this is going to cause all of Russia's neighbors who are in equal status with Ukraine to rush into NATO membership, a lose for Russia in the long run since NATO means more western ties

[QUOTE=Hotpocket321;44274100][IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/qFqrUN.gif[/IMG] This is what waiting gets us.[/QUOTE] What's the source, if I may ask?

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;44274251]What's the source, if I may ask?[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;NB5jyYD2WEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB5jyYD2WEw[/video]

[QUOTE=Tuskin;44273176]"McCain said he was not calling for American boots on the ground, but short of that other kinds of military help are vital “because God knows what Vladimir Putin will do next.” " No boots, but other 'military help' so what? Air Strikes? lending equipment?[/QUOTE] Libya was a "no boots on the ground" kind of intervention. So probably something like that.

People seem more willing to get involved in a full scale war with Russia than they seemed to care about intervening in Syria.

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;44274445]gotta finally fuck them commies[/QUOTE] I can literally feel the communism emitting from your post.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44273755]Then why aren't we intervening whole hog in Venezuela? They seem to meet the checklist: - Anti-American Government - Angry Citizenry - Large Supply of Oil - Semi-Socialist Economy Why haven't we set foot there? Why isn't half of South America "Liberated"? If you're gonna start with this logic, [I]back it up.[/I][/QUOTE] If I remember correct, Venezuela was also a Russian ally, and USA knows better not to fuck with that.

While war is the last thing I'd want, I really think European nations should rather start emphasizing the military support of other European nations - the collective might of the NATO league sans USA. The idea was collective defense, yet everyone screams for the US' bosom when somebody comes knocking. Leave them out of this for once and realize the entire European armed forces is a goddamn force to be reckoned with. The only universal deterrent is, again, nuclear armaments, but if Russia DID choose to launch them, European warheads would be pounding away at Russian soil the same as US ones if the USA was involved. Outside of that, I'm fairly certain Europe alone can take on Russia's full might, ESPECIALLY on home turf. Stop pushing arbitrary obligations on the US for once.

When was the last time UN actually did something besides run around in blue helmets looking important?

[QUOTE=Tuskin;44273176]"McCain said he was not calling for American boots on the ground, but short of that other kinds of military help are vital “because God knows what Vladimir Putin will do next.” " No boots, but other 'military help' so what? Air Strikes? lending equipment?[/QUOTE] I doubt that. Air strikes could be a bit painfull for US too, because we have some pretty good AA, and equipment would not be very useful for ukranian soldiers since they are not even closely familiar with american weaponary, and it may take month if not years to get trained with them.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44273589]Yeah, that's why the U.S. invaded oil-rich Afghanistan. Oh no Afghanistan doesn't have any oil what do I do with my ill-conceived fallacy now?[/QUOTE] Think outside the barrel. They have mountains of copper and lithium.

Honestly I think we should band together a bunch of countries and start a massive embargo on all Russian goods. That way there is very little combat with a huge effect. Russia would have a hard time funding their efforts in the long run if they decided to go ahead with their ploy despite the embargo.

The CIA must assassinate putin.

I sure do hope so, can't let Russia do whatever it wants. It can't hold a war with 1/3rd of NATO, let alone all of it. If Russia does invade Ukraine or neighboring countries, I don't really see an alternative. No, there won't be any nukes involved this is not a videogame. In the extreme case that there are, MAD-style apocalypse is not going to happen, Long War doctrine exists just for that reason (escalating nuclear exchange over 14 days, each time trying to make another day of exchanges unwelcoming, therefore avoiding a large scale nuclear barrage). Not to mention in Russia's condition, probably over half their stocks are not useable, and many more are old, inaccurate, small, and carried by planes (and they don't have the airpower to get them to destination). They don't have the precision or the readyness, a large majority of their arsenal would be knocked out before they could launch, and a large majority of what is remaining would be not optimal to say the least.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;44274778]The CIA must assassinate putin.[/QUOTE] at this point I think the backlash from doing that would be immense

[QUOTE=frozensoda;44274804]at this point I think the backlash from doing that would be immense[/QUOTE] 'At this point'? When the hell wouldn't it have caused a massive backlash? Keep in mind you're talking about [i]assassinating the leader of a world superpower[/i].

[QUOTE=Lijitsu;44274816]'At this point'? When the hell wouldn't it have caused a massive backlash? Keep in mind you're talking about [i]assassinating the leader of a world superpower[/i].[/QUOTE] i guess it was a bad attempt at subtle humor

[QUOTE=frozensoda;44274804]at this point I think the backlash from doing that would be immense[/QUOTE] It's the CIA, they can get away with anything and nobody will ever find out. I'm sure they're pretty good a making people ''disappear''.