22 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneOver here in Europe where the border ends at Poland, NATO has been building up troops in the Ex soviet states Like Lithuania for a little while. War in the Ukraine seems inevitable now, especially after two Pro west politicians were found Tortured and killed earlier today.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-s--sends-600-troops-to-poland--baltics-in-message-to-russia-over-ukraine-175716068.html
Isn't this how Vietnam started?
Thanks for noticing.
edit - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27118875
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI grew up with a great-uncle who had migrated from Lithuania around 1900 and I can tell you that a real fear exists there concerning Russia and its' territorial ambitions. This is nothing like Vietnam. The Vietnamese had been fighting for centuries to be free and the West was trying to split them up.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-s--sends-600-troops-to-poland--baltics-in-message-to-russia-over-ukraine-175716068.html
Isn't this how Vietnam started?
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by Suzianne600 troops to do what?
http://news.yahoo.com/u-s--sends-600-troops-to-poland--baltics-in-message-to-russia-over-ukraine-175716068.html
Isn't this how Vietnam started?
It's all for show and Putin knows it. If our president can sit back and do nothing while a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi gets wasted, then why should I believe he's truly concerned about helping anyone? If anything the U.S. has been helping Putin in his recent efforts at a land grab. I doubt those 600 troops will be allowed to do anything other than to stand around and look impressive. Putin will not be impressed, but this show of force isn't really meant for him... they've been sent there to impress us, not the Russians.
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by lemon limeThat's my point. It's only 600 troops, but their role there is to help train the indigenous troops, presumably through their NATO ties. In Vietnam, the first American troops there, also few in number, were sent in an 'advisor' role through their SEATO ties.
600 troops to do what?
It's all for show and Putin knows it. If our president can sit back and do nothing while a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi gets wasted, then why should I believe he's truly concerned about helping anyone? If anything the U.S. has been helping Putin in his recent efforts at a land grab. I doubt those 600 troops will be allowed to do a ...[text shortened]... force[/i] isn't really meant for him... they've been sent there to impress us, not the Russians.
This is how I meant, "Isn't this how Vietnam started?"
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186301
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneHopefully for your (American's) sake it doesn't end that way too.
That's my point. It's only 600 troops, but their role there is to help train the indigenous troops, presumably through their NATO ties. In Vietnam, the first American troops there, also few in number, were sent in an 'advisor' role through their SEATO ties.
This is how I meant, "Isn't this how Vietnam started?"
23 Apr 14
Like Vietnam,the majority of locals in Crimea support Russia and want away from the west and Eu.Sure Russia is not motivated ethically. A little birdie told me a Russian president gave away Crimea in a drunken bet.But where is nato and Obama in Syria?How many people are dying there compared to Crimea? (146,000 dead ,a million displaced vs 3)Where is Obama?Playing strategic games?
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneYeah, you're right. That is how Vietnam got started. But it never would have been more than a handful of advisors over there if one of our presidents hadn't started sending in our own troops. And the next president didn't help matters when he escalated our part in that war by sending in many more active troops. Some people objected to simply sending in advisors for training and supplying weapons, because of how it could open the door to what did happen later.
That's my point. It's only 600 troops, but their role there is to help train the indigenous troops, presumably through their NATO ties. In Vietnam, the first American troops there, also few in number, were sent in an 'advisor' role through their SEATO ties.
This is how I meant, "Isn't this how Vietnam started?"
Based on how we've seen Obama deal with other issues, I think he's simply trying to appease both sides of this. After sending in troops to appease people who are unhappy with Putins land grab he'll probably announce at some later date that "stability has been achieved", or some other such nonsense, and start pulling troops out to appease the anti war crowd.
27 Apr 14
Originally posted by lemon limeThey all start the same way. One side does something stupid and the other side does too. I don't know, this thing is starting to look like it could escalate into WW3.
Yeah, you're right. That is how Vietnam got started. But it never would have been more than a handful of advisors over there if one of our presidents hadn't started sending in our own troops. And the next president didn't help matters when he escalated our part in that war by sending in many more active troops. Some people objected to simply sendin ...[text shortened]... ieved", or some other such nonsense, and start pulling troops out to appease the anti war crowd.
27 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashRussia doesn't need to start a world war, because they could do to us what Ronald Reagan did to them. And if China followed suit then it's a sure bet they could both (working together) bankrupt the U.S. We've put ourselves in a very vulnerable position. Don't ask me why we've done this to ourselves, because I don't know. Maybe the U.S. has become so fat and lazy we just don't care anymore... that's as good an explanation as any.
They all start the same way. One side does something stupid and the other side does too. I don't know, this thing is starting to look like it could escalate into WW3.