Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Why the United States Shouldn't Waste Time or Money On the Ukraine/Crimea...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Exactly why the USA and the Obama administration consider the situation in Crimea a proper use of our time and or resources is puzzling. Especially given the small patch of land has no real strategic or tactical impact on our security or national interests. Further, the people of Crimea voted over this past weekend to join the Russian Federation. Crimea is 60% ethnic Russian and they voted (self determination) in what they believed their interest to become a part of the RF rater than remain an autonomous region of Ukraine. Democracy at work, right?

Ron Paul, in an editorial piece in USA TODAY spells out the reasons most Libertarians believe the administrations stance is misguided. Mr. Paul's arguments are hard to argue against if viewed with an eye to democracy, self determination of the Crimean peoples, and even our own Constitution.

Residents of Crimea voted over the weekend on whether they would remain an autonomous region of Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. In so doing, they joined a number of countries and regions — including recently Scotland, Catalonia and Venice — that are seeking to secede from what they view as unresponsive or oppressive governments.

These latter three are proceeding without much notice, while the overwhelming Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine has incensed U.S. and European Union officials, and has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War.

What's the big deal? Opponents of the Crimea vote like to point to the illegality of the referendum. But self-determination is a centerpiece of international law. Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the U.N. is to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

Critics point to the Russian "occupation" of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a "triumph of democracy"?

Perhaps the U.S. officials who supported the unconstitutional overthrow of Ukraine's government should refocus their energies on learning our own Constitution, which does not allow the U.S. government to overthrow governments overseas or send a billion dollars to bail out Ukraine and its international creditors.

Ron Paul is correct on this issue and it remains puzzling how our own government fails to recognize this. But then again, come to think of it, this certainly is not the first time,

Read the rest of the article BELOW THE FOLD

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Scotland is voting on secession? We may suppose there will be a taking sides situation, whatever the Scots voters motivations.
    The sides will split betweent those who saw the movie Braveheart, and those who understand real
    Scottish history. Afterall, the 5'10" Mel Gibson in blueface was hardly a 6'6" William Wallace. :)

  2. The cons are just egging for trouble. It keeps them in business.


    1. ALL our major conflicts were started by presidents with a Liberal Reformer Complex -- that mad passionate desire to change the status quo to suit the would-be reformers' notion of how things OUGHT to be. even our glorious Revolution of 1776 in truth was such a move, but it worked ot well -- apparently -- although I'm no linger sure it accomplished all that much over the long haul considering where we've been for more than a hundred years.

      Names mean nothing outside the context of their times. Lincoln was called a "Republican" -- a new party in his day -- but his ACTIONS resembled those of the willful, arrogant, dictatorial Do-Gooders who've been plaguing us and hampering our progress for the past century,

      After Lincoln came TR an the Spanish American War, which in truth was a disgrace. Then came WILSON, a truly EVIL man who finagled us into World War One and began the despicable concept of One World Government. Then FDR's Jewish Brain Trust, virtually all of whom admired The Bolsheviks and the USSR, created the New Deal, which put the USA firmly in the path towards becoming a Socialist Republik. To avert total economic eclipse FDR got us involved in WWII. After that TRUMAN got us into KOREA.

      Ever since the end of WWII, we've been led -- by :The Oligarchs -- into a series of "limited wars" which of which has proved more disastrous than the next. Who are "The Oligarchs?" Like Satan they have managed to persuade most of the world that they do not exist -- a status that gives them virtually unbridled power to ride roughshod over anyone they choose. This is a group of dedicated INTERNATIONALISTS, who USE all the various factions, by exacerbating tensions between them, thus keeping them at each other's throats, while they, "The Oligarchs," remain high above the fray all the while profiting tremendously by the conflicts they foment.

      They have most of us wasting our resources tilting at windmills.

  3. I take it then you are in agreement with Mr. Paul, the fiscally conservative constitutionalist libertarian then eh jmj?

    And hows about that Obama and Kerry and the "there will be costs Putin" liberal crowd jmj?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    1. They may be a little liberal with some things, Les, but the Dems are going to walk the usual walk on this. Surprise, surprise. The GOP is far worse, of course, taking advantage to make political hay regardless of the consequences.

      When it comes to the military state, many liberals, like myself, agree with Ron Paul. Some of the other things he espouses strike us as a little loony.


    2. Obama and Kerry are just play-acting, Les. They won't DO anything. It's all Political Theater designed to make the masses think the The Big-O's Administration is "on the job." As many commentators have indicated lately -- even "liberal" ones -- Obama and Kerry, and the rest of that bunch, are living in a Fantasy World -- a dreamworld of their own making. They are farceurs -- not unlike little boys playing Cowboys and Indians.

      Unfortunately, this does not mean the consequence of electing these buffoons will not prove dire.

    3. Bla bla bla. Obama certainly feels the weight of these things far more than the aloof buffoons you cons have idiotically put in office since Reagan.


  4. The only problem with Paul's assessment is that remaining an autonomous part of the Ukraine was an option they got to vote on. The choices were: 1. Join Russia or 2. Revert to the 1992 constitutional status that was the first thing thrown out the door when the old Soviet Union collapsed. Maintaining the status quo was not an option.

    I am a fiscally conservative constitutional libertarian, or in other words a classical liberal, and I'll tell you this... one of the fatal flaws of the Libertarian Party is and has been isolationism. The Fortress America mindset is a relic of the 19th century.

    Why do we care? Because like the Russians we gave Ukraine assurances that its territorial integrity would be respected in return for nuclear disarmament, and like a man, a country is only as good as its word.

    Finally... take a look at Iraq and tell me with a straight face that it was a "triumph of democracy".

    1. Forgive me, Finntann, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. We invaded Iraq after letting ourselves be convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, had plans to take over the region militarily, and was, therefore, a dire threat to World Peace -- and to precious Israel in particular. So, in the immortal words of GWB, we decided "we're gonna take him out." The disastrous results of this "Foreign Entanglement" are obvious.

      I believe all of us have been "played" for fools by what-I-call The Oligarchs. Korea, Vietnam, the stupid, embarrassing abortive Desert Storm, and then the attack on Iraq under the ages-old rationalization that "Spreading Democracy" was a moral imperative have ALL been profitless ventures, and have cost us far too much in blood and treasure to consider justifiable.

      Now, of course, because of our once-popular assumption of Superiority both moral and military, we have in effect painted ourselves into a corner. We do not have the resources to follow through in any meaningful way on your suggestion. We are -- thanks to rotten government and nefarious manipulation from Behind the Scenes we are now a SPENT FORCE -- a paper tiger and all that.

      We've been euchred into destroying our ascendancy, by intellectual termites who have persuaded us to believe that our hegemony was immoral and thus untenable.

      AS fine kettle of fish, in't it?

  5. I too am a classical liberal, one of my areas of interest throughout my life.

    Iraq was a triumph of nothing. It destabalized the reason, cost billions, increased distrust and hate for western values, and most unfortunate it cost American blood. A travesty equal to or worse than Vietnam.

    We should not be acting as the worlds police force, judge, and jury in all things. Yet we will continue to try. In the process we will further increase our national debt and relinquish more national treasure and security to China and our other creditor nations.

    As an added bonus Finntann our infrastructure will further deteriorate, our true national interests will go unattended to, our middle class will continue to shrink, and it will happen as we continue to invest in blinders.

    Be sure we're right ethically based in sound and consistent philosophy when we pick our fights and then... " walk softly and carry a big stick."

    Now, I'm going to read some Thomas Paine. If you're a classical liberal you'll understand what I'm driving at.

  6. "There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue." - Edmund Burke.

    Iraq was a triumph up and to the point at which we toppled Saddam, unfortunately at that point we managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    You are correct, we should not be the world's police force, however the position is one we have created for ourselves through arrogance and ineptitude, and we cannot simply walk away. To do so would be both immoral and unethical. Perhaps some good will come of this in prompting the EU to take more responsibility for their defense instead of relying on us... but I'm not holding my breath,

  7. If we had toppled Hussein and left the ruling party in power perhaps. But the reality is we engaged in destruction of a sovereign nation an then pursued a course of nation building. It failed, costs lives and billions of dollars, as well as ballooning our national debt.

    The justification for the war was questionable at best. It is possible it was trumped up as some have argued. The bottom line... huge mistake.

    I am pretty much in agreement with your other points. Bottom line IMNHO is this, it is time to wean the Europeans as well as anyone else sucking on the security tests we have provided the rest of the world for the past 70 years. One we can no longer afford it and two it is not the job of the USA to be the Big Brother to the rest of the world. In fact a philosophical argument can be made that it is immoral to do so.

  8. WISDOM c. 400 BC:

    "The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs. When he first appears, he is a Protector . . . In the early days of his power he is full of smiles. . . When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies . . . and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader. . . Has he not also another object . . . that they may be impoverished by taxes and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and [be] therefore less likely to conspire against him?"

    ~ Plato (427-347 B. C.)

    UNH HMM, and yes indeedy!

    The lesson we learn from History is that we learn NOTHING from History.

  9. FT. I'm not contradicting myself, the WMD's were irrelevant. The elimination of Saddam was an act of good and as Les says, we should have stopped there and been done with it.

  10. "The elimination of Saddam was an act of good and as Les says, we should have stopped there and been done with it."

    Perhaps the elimination of Saddam was not the goal, merely a step along the way.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.