5 votes

U.S. Military Hypocrisy on Crimea

News has broken that U.S. General Martin Dempsey has stated that the United States will take military action if Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is triggered, which states “that an armed attack against one or more [NATO members] shall be considered an attack against them all.” (Sounds like our stance against an attack on Israel, no?)

Fro the Moscow Times:

“We do have treaty obligations with our NATO allies. And I have assured them that, if that treaty obligation is triggered, we would respond,” he said in the interview on Friday night.

“If Russia is allowed to do this, which is to say move into a sovereign country under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians in Ukraine, it exposes Eastern Europe to some significant risk because there are ethnic enclaves all over Eastern Europe and the Balkans,” General Martin Dempsey said in an interview to PBS television.

There are currently 400,000 Romanians living in Ukraine, Dempsey said, citing the example of Romania, which has been a member of NATO since 2004.

Just like with U.S. involvement with other international organizations, namely the UN, America is once again getting drawn into a war that doesn’t – or shouldn’t – affect it. Granted, US/Russian relations have been rocky as of late, and the US is always concerned with what its brother in nukes is up to, but in reality NATO hasn’t been needed since the end of the cold war and according to Rothbard was never really needed. Military involvement will simply bring us into another pointless war, but this time with an adversary with far larger teeth than the nipping incisors of the Middle Eastern terrorists.
Continue To Full Article



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No

Dempsey is saying the UN Treaties/NATO treaties with EUROPE (The EU) that have to do with investment contracts, especially food and fuel, international corporations that do business in Europe and America that source their food supply from the Ukrain.. IF Russis deploys troops to "protect some Russians", the US will protect it's interests abiding to the treaties signed with the UN/NATO.

It doesn't have squat to do with Israel.. though the UN, anti-Israel works to make EVERYTHING wrong = Israel, so I understand, but that is not the case here.

US/EU have treaties with UN/NATO
Russia is "invading" which could lead to a takeover of American investments, not people.

Granger

Granger, I'm going to assume you didn't click the link and read the full article. If you did you would have seen this:
"As is typical for tyrannical regimes, the real motivations are strategic. Crimea’s location on the Black Sea is a focal point for oil pipelines and a strategic sea port. When looking at the global landscape, it’s easy to discern the true motivations of each side. Anyone with internet access and a cursory understanding of politicians can see through the rhetoric instantly."

Yes

And I don't see it as retoric.. absolutely stratigic because either Russia is going to control all of it, or US corporate investments will be protected and continue to trade bwtween the US and EU through UN/NATO treaties.

To me, the US is only saying that they will protect the interests they already have with EU through the treaties with the UN and NATO.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Actually, between Syria and the Ukraine I find Putin very much the hawk and wonder why so many who hate war seem to hate America at war, but everyone else, even at the loss of Americans investments, that's ok?

It's bull.

It boils anti-war to being anti-US and pro war.

There is some truth

There is some truth to what you say Granger. There is often a hypocrisy in some people that are "anti-war" , but really only seem to be outraged by American wars.

Of course, Putin is no saint and noone to be praised. The issue is complicated as Russia already had an agreement and had troops in Crimea in accordance with that agreement.

What I take issue with is this idea of "investments". Whose investments are they that need to be protected? Yours? Mine? I have no personal investments there, and if I did the honus would be on me to see that they are protected. The U.S. government owns no assets of its own, only the wealth it confiscates from others. Any "investments" that might be referred to here are referring to crony corporations that want the U.S. government to do their dirty work for them. This is pure mercantalism , and incompatible with the ideas of liberty.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Well Marc

Merchantile is what makes the world go round, and being free to trade, means being free to invest, and when you invest you want some kind of protection.

As it stands, American and the EU have investments and those investments any personal investment you make is dimes when you buy a product from outside the USA.

I don't believe allowing Putin and the communists to take American ?EU businesses and to control ours is compatible with the ideas of liberty.