Cruz, McCain, Kerry: America should arm Ukraine

[devil21]

Peas in a pod.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/08/cruz-pushes-for-us-to-arm-ukraine-plan-opposed-by-germany-ahead-possible-peace/


Sen. Ted Cruz said Sunday that the U.S. should honor a treaty obligation to supply weapons to Ukraine to thwart Russian-back separatists -- a plan with little support among European leaders trying to broker a cease-fire deal as early as Wednesday.

“When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the path we're on doesn't make any sense,” Cruz, R-Texas, told ABC’s “This Week” while at the Munich Security Conference. “We need to be providing defensive arms to the people of Ukraine.”

He was in Germany as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation attending the conference that also met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
........................................
Secretary of State John Kerry, who also is in Munich, on Sunday tried to dispel the notion of a trans-Atlantic rift on supply arms, saying U.S. and its European allies are "united in our diplomacy" on Ukraine.
.......................................
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was also in Munich and said the U.S. must provide defensive arms to Ukraine.

more hyper-interventionism at link

Still can't figure out why the Pauls endorsed that guy.

[AngryCanadian]

This is Ironic.

“When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the path we're on doesn't make any sense,” Cruz, R-Texas

You what doesn't make sense? the current way that America is right a war mongering, aggregator, and aggressor, threatening other nations with threats if America doesn't have its way.

What good would arming fascists and nationalists in Ukraine bring eh?



Still can't figure out why the Pauls endorsed that guy.
Because the senate and congress are both controlled by the same groups that want a war with Russia.

[devil21]

Because the senate and congress are both controlled by the same groups that want a war with Russia.

I agree with you in general, of course, but that would also imply the Pauls are "in on it". I just can't see Ron spending 25 years in Congress railing against interventionism as part of the plan for another war (or at least cold war) with Russia.

[Southron]

This policy is crazy. All we will do is get Ukranians killed and it wont change a thing.

The military industrial complex must be crying for more work.

[devil21]

This policy is crazy. All we will do is get Ukranians killed and it wont change a thing.

The military industrial complex must be crying for more work.

And they're getting it. Largest ever Pentagon budget floated.
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/02/04/pentagon-requests-534-billion-for-2016-largest-ever-war-budget/


The White House will be seeking $534 billion from Congress to run the Pentagon in 2016 – its largest budget ever.

However, a source told RT that the budget is actually closer to $1 trillion, and has been for several administrations.

The Obama administration declared an end to “mindless austerity” on Thursday and called for a surge in government spending, asking Congress to end the sequestration agreed upon four years ago. The White House is looking for $74 billion in additional spending overall, or a seven percent increase. The a full budget proposal will be presented on Monday.

It's waaaaaay over a trill when you add in black ops, backdoor payoffs to dictators, etc.

I don't think we need to pay for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQ5EPnSE_4

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant reading - US partly to blame for Ukraine’s use of cluster bombs – McCain (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?468278-US-partly-to-blame-for-Ukraine’s-use-of-cluster-bombs-–-McCain&p=5775983&viewfull=1#post5775983)

It's really important to pay attention to what other nations are doing with regard to what is happening in the Ukraine. And for a few reasons. These nations aren't going to be just accepting that TPP willy nilly either. Which is a kind of aside thing but, really, relevant at the same time. (Bookmark this thread for evolving relevance there... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?456224-72-points-of-BRICS-Summit-Declaration&p=5775836&viewfull=1#post5775836 )

Kerry and McCain and that bunch are really shitting their pants at the moment. Heh...

[Ralph Coffman]

Teddie getting told how to vote - http://cdn5.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/kissingercruz.png

[AngryCanadian]

The love and attention they give for Kissinger is disgusting.

[Cabal]

http://www.mannbeisstfilm.de/files/435_1_1214924280.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

What a bunch of pussies. Call for a nuclear first strike on Moscow! Who's in? McCain? Lindsey? Jeb? Marco? Menendez? Ayotte? Kinzinger? Petey King? Hannity? Bolt-on? Pablo Cruz?

[Natural Citizen]

The love and attention they give for Kissinger is disgusting.

Kissinger and Brzezinski hold complete opposite positions with regard to U.S. foreign policy at the moment. And they have had opposing views for some time. Now, I'm not cheerleading either of them but sitting down with Kissinger these days isn't a bad idea.

If anyone has been paying attention there is a major power struggle happening among the made men who typically play both sides of the political paradigm and function in synergy within both political parties at the moment. That's a big deal.

[puppetmaster]

The rest of Europe is against this....surprise

[vita3]

Cruz is a Neo-con's, Neo-con w/ foreign policy. Glad this forum sees him clearly.

[Brett85]

Cruz is a Neo-con's, Neo-con w/ foreign policy. Glad this forum sees him clearly.

I don't know. He certainly isn't where Rand is at on foreign policy, but Jennifer Rubin certainly doesn't consider him to be a neocon's neocon.


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has been a mixed bag on foreign policy, generally solid in opposing Russian aggression and on Iran’s nuclear program, but inconsistent — if not illogical — on Syria and fighting the Islamic State and terribly misguided in attempting to hamstring the National Security Agency.

One issue on which Cruz has been coy is defense spending. At the Foreign Policy Initiative forum this week, he told the audience that “in all likelihood” we need to spend more on defense. He then dwelt on a puny $120 million unnecessary item for algae fuel studies and insisted that we needed to spend more of the defense budget on war-fighting than bureaucracy. He certainly seems to have a foot in both the green-eyeshade camp and the hawk camp, but on this issue he will need to definitively choose: Do we keep the sequester or not? How will he pay for that if he does not want to raise the top-line budget numbers? Really, it is quite astounding that at a time we are headed for the smallest Army, Navy and Air Force in modern times and are discharging soldiers, sailors and airmen at an alarming rate he should be fixated on a $120 million item in a budget of $585 billion.

What Cruz did not bring up was another misguided venture — his bipartisan effort (thankfully defeated) to take sexual assault investigations out of the chain of command. (Maybe he recalled that forum moderator Bill Kristol was a leading critic of interfering with the chain of command.) We wish Cruz would explain himself on that topic. Does he simply not believe the stream of current and past military commanders and defense experts, including Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), that such a measure would be damaging to military order, cohesion and discipline?

Likewise, when asked about his support for an NSA provision backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and other left-wingers that would have seriously impeded the NSA efforts, Cruz filibustered. He hopped and darted from topic to topic, raising the red herring that we gather too much data and therefore miss clues about attacks such as the Fort Hood episode and the Boston bombing. (Of course, these involve intercepting the content of messages, not metadata gathering.) Then he was on to the president’s record at the Supreme Court and abuse of domestic powers.

This is the sort of poor reasoning one would expect of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). First, as an independent panel found, the NSA has not abused its powers. This has been a solution in pursuit of a problem since the sensationalist news reports surfaced. Moreover, it seems childish to disable national security because Cruz does not like one president’s domestic power grab. Like it or not, we will get bad presidents from time to time, but disabling intelligence-gathering is not the appropriate remedy.

Frankly, Cruz is smart enough to know better. Informed voters and certainly military experts and intelligence officials can tell he’s throwing up dirt in the air in lieu of a decent argument. In fact, there are protections within the existing NSA structure, and there was a far less draconian measure in the House. One comes away with the sneaking suspicion that Cruz was simply trying to keep pace with Paul in the search for libertarian votes. It is a race he should not run — not if he wants to be a serious figure on national security.




Cruz is erratic on some of these issues and frequently confounds hawks. Perhaps his calculus is so political that it interferes with sound judgment. Maybe he simply distrusts our military commanders and intelligence officials (who are frank that we need more boots on the ground to defeat the Islamic State, who defend the NSA vigorously and who warn about the dangers of disrupting the chain-of-command structure). Skepticism is healthy, but why should we trust the judgment of an ambitious freshman senator over, say, Gen. Michael Hayden on the NSA or Gen. Ray Odierno on the chain of command? What respectable military or national security figure thinks we can, as Cruz suggests, beat the Islamic State with only airpower? I have yet to find one, and his advisers have never been able to point to one either. When a smart man ignores respected experts like these and takes positions injurious to national security, you have to wonder whether his priorities are something other than national security.

Cruz, like Paul, has a knack for voting against things because they are imperfect and require compromise. That is an easy way to get perfect scores from right-wing groups and to claim ideological purity over rivals. But that’s not good enough when you are in the majority and have to fix things, and it certainly is not what we would expect of a commander in chief. Cruz touts his bipartisanship in passing small measures by 100-0 (e.g. a reward for one of the three Jewish teens murdered in Israel). But real leadership matters when you are the deciding vote or when not all your supporters agree.

One hopes that Cruz develops the courage to stop chasing the libertarian vote, the wisdom to find the best available solutions to serious problems and the humility to start listening to people who know much more than he does.

[Brett85]

I mean, I'm certainly not even saying that Cruz is "good" on foreign policy, but as bad as his positions are, amazingly he'll still probably be the 2nd best candidate on those issues next to Rand in the GOP primary.

[Scrooge McDuck]

I mean, I'm certainly not even saying that Cruz is "good" on foreign policy, but as bad as his positions are, amazingly he'll still probably be the 2nd best candidate on those issues next to Rand in the GOP primary.

Just reinforces my leaving the GOP officially. Rand won't need my vote in PA. It will be decided by then.

[Cabal]

I mean, I'm certainly not even saying that Cruz is "good" on foreign policy, but as bad as his positions are, amazingly he'll still probably be the 2nd best candidate on those issues next to Rand in the GOP primary.

This isn't something to be happy or positive about. In fact, it's a fairly damning commentary on the state of things, or rather the nature of the State. Not that any of this is at all surprising.

[Ronin Truth]

I guess that we've found a new team to replace, the late "Three Stooges". <nyuk, nyuk,nyuk>

[wizardwatson]

Peas in a pod.

Is Rand Paul a pea?

Here's an "foreign policy opinion" article by Rand Paul from March 9, 2014. Now this was before this larger war developed but after the US engineered coup of mid-February (Obama has admitted this off the record in a news interview) when Viktor Yanukovych, the democratically elected president, was forced to flee the country. So the annexation of Crimea was AFTER all that. Now I would love to hear Rand Paul's opinion on Ukraine today, but I doubt I will be impressed if this less-than-a-year-old assessment is any kind of preview.

I'm excited to see how the Ron Paul Revolutionaries can explain to me why all this makes perfect sense "when you consider the broader more strategic liberty-oriented goals." Because to me, it sounds like what all the other puppets say:




http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/

In an op-ed for TIME, Senator Rand Paul argues that if he were President, he would take a harder stance against the Russian President for his actions:

[B]Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine [facts Rand?] is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community. His continuing occupation of Ukraine [Putin occupies Ukraine?] is completely unacceptable, and Russia’s President should be isolated for his actions.

It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.

Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation. [is this where Rand proves he's not isolationist? 'Russia must learn'?]

This does not and should not require military action. No one in the U.S. is calling for this. But it will require other actions and leadership, both of which President Obama unfortunately lacks.

I recommend a number of specific and decisive measures to punish Putin for his ongoing aggression.

Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay. [doesn't everyone in the movement agree that sanctions are war?] I would urge our European allies to leverage their considerable weight with Russia and take the lead on imposing these penalties. I would do everything in my power to aggressively market and export America’s vast natural gas resources to Europe.

I would immediately remove every obstacle or current ban blocking the export of American oil and gas to Europe, and I would lift restrictions on new oil and gas development in order to ensure a steady energy supply at home and so we can supply Europe with oil if it is interrupted from Ukraine.

Because of so many of our current needless laws and regulations, President Obama has left Europe completely vulnerable because of its dependence on Russian oil and gas.

I would support immediate construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

It is important that Russia become economically isolated until all its forces are removed from Crimea and Putin pledges to act in accordance with the international standards of behavior that respect the rights of free people everywhere.

We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia. Ukraine owes so much money to Russia that America would essentially be borrowing from China to give to Russia.

The U.S. should suspend its participation in this summer’s G-8 summit and take the lead in boycotting the event in Sochi. If Putin’s troops remain in Crimea at the time of the summit, Russia should be expelled from the group.


I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it. The problem with the foreign policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations is that they never give a second thought to how America can afford what they implement.

America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman or ATM.

At the end of the day, I still agree with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen — the greatest threat to America’s security is our national debt.

Russia, the Middle East or any other troubled part of the world should never make us forget that the U.S. is broke. We weaken our security and defenses when we print money out of thin air or borrow from other countries to allegedly support our own.

Like Dwight Eisenhower, I believe the U.S. can actually be stronger by doing less.

Like Ronald Reagan, particularly regarding Russia, I also believe, “Don’t mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.”

I stand with the people of Ukraine against subjugation and support their efforts to restore freedom. The Ukrainian people must be free to determine the fate and future of their own nation without unwarranted military or political intimidation from Russia.

Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength” requires strength of the sort President Obama now fails to project. But what some American leaders, including some in my own party, often forget is that lasting peace was always Reagan’s ultimate objective.

I have said, and some have taken exception, that too many U.S. leaders still think in Cold War terms and are quick to “tweak” the international community. This is true.

But mutual respect and practical diplomacy is a two-way street, where Russia or any other nation should not be tweaking us, or their neighbors, either.

Putin’s invasion and occupation of Crimea certainly now go far beyond tweaking.

The U.S., in cooperation with the international community, should respond to Russia’s aggression with action.

The Budapest Memorandum said that Russia wouldn’t violate the integrity of Ukraine, but now it has. [again Rand, where's your evidence?] There is no realistic military option in this conflict, at least for the U.S. But this does not mean there aren’t options, many of which I’ve outlined here.

The real problem is that Russia’s President is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s President, despite his country’s blatant aggression.[?]

But let me be clear: If I were President, I wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin get away with it.

If Rand is so comfortable pointing out Russia's "blatant aggression" why not point out USA's blatant aggression? Anyway, I'm sure it's all part of Rand's secret plan.

[twomp]

I mean, I'm certainly not even saying that Cruz is "good" on foreign policy, but as bad as his positions are, amazingly he'll still probably be the 2nd best candidate on those issues next to Rand in the GOP primary.

His comments about Ukraine/Russia and his support for air strikes against ISIS proves that Rand Paul is a part-time warmonger just like you. The only reason he still has our support is his dad Ron Paul. Plain and simple. ANY OTHER POLITICIAN would earn our ire just like Rafael Cruz is earning. That is the ONLY difference. Rand Paul should get down on his knees at the end of each day and thank the lord for his dad.

[wizardwatson]

His comments about Ukraine/Russia and his support for air strikes against ISIS proves that Rand Paul is a part-time warmonger just like you. The only reason he still has our support is his dad Ron Paul. Plain and simple. ANY OTHER POLITICIAN would earn our ire just like Rafael Cruz is earning. That is the ONLY difference. Rand Paul should get down on his knees at the end of each day and thank the lord for his dad.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Rand had some big shoes to fill, but instead put on some different shoes. And instead of the movement being more critical and holding his feet to the fire, we "cut him some slack" because his dad is Ron Paul so something must have rubbed off, right?

Rand's position in the movement (not that he really cares about the movement or any other liberty group mind you) is nepotism, and that's our collective fault.

[ZENemy]

This shit is fucking insane.

its 2015, how long are just going to sit here and let our gov do whatever the fuck they want?

Image the outrage if Russia ARMED the occupy movement? What if the Hippies in the 60's were armed by China to help with Vietnam?


INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"Just in, the U.S is going to NUKE Russia" would anyone even give a fuck?



Every time I think about how much trouble I'm in with the IRS I just think about shit like this and how fucking happy I am that I have not paid for it.

[UWDude]

Interesting read here, from an American pragmatist's position:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/heres-why-arming-ukraine-would-be-disaster-12213

Of note:


Arming a foreign military with weapons it doesn't know how to use is the stuff quagmires are made of...
James Carden


The joint report by the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs calling for the United States to arm Ukraine to the tune of $3 billion a year through 2017 provoked a surprisingly strong (and much needed) backlash from several important policy hands in Washington. Within forty-eight hours of the report’s release, well-respected Russia experts from Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment, Kissinger Associates and the Kennan Institute voiced their well-founded objections to the report’s recommendations.

(note the gravitas of the objectionists compared to that of those endorsing arming Ukriane)


According to the Ukrainian daily Korrespondent, only 6 percent of those showing up this year for the call to military service have done so voluntarily. Does McCain propose to send arms to an army that has no recruits with which to use them? Are we so sure that the weapons McCain would like to provide Kiev wouldn’t end up in the wrong hands, as they have so many times before, in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya and in Afghanistan?



If the idea that the United States can help “level the playing field” by funneling billions of dollars worth of equipment that Ukrainian forces don't know how to operate is a fantasy, the idea that those same weapons would serve to deter Mr. Putin is no less so.

[GunnyFreedom]

I want to post this on fedbook, but it will only encourage the blood-lust of the warmongers. :(

[AngryCanadian]

This shit is fucking insane.

its 2015, how long are just going to sit here and let our gov do whatever the fuck they want?

Image the outrage if Russia ARMED the occupy movement? What if the Hippies in the 60's were armed by China to help with Vietnam?


INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"Just in, the U.S is going to NUKE Russia" would anyone even give a fuck?
Every time I think about how much trouble I'm in with the IRS I just think about shit like this and how fucking happy I am that I have not paid for it.


I think they would give a fuck once The American gov gets exposed or grilled.

[AngryCanadian]

I want to post this on fedbook, but it will only encourage the blood-lust of the warmongers. :(

Your actually saying there are more war mongers?

[GunnyFreedom]

Posted it anyway. Accusations of being an Obama-loving libtard in 3...2...1...

[GunnyFreedom]

Your actually saying there are more war mongers?

Most "ordinary" Republicans are utterly brainwashed. They advocate positions they don't necessarily hold, but which have been thrust upon them by demands for loyalty to Team Red. The promote these positions so that they do not look 'weak' amongst their peers and bet blackballed, or frozen out from the process.

[GunnyFreedom]

I mean what the hell, I'm not here to fail to rock the boat, right? I'm already on thin ice after calling out Thom Tillis on his 'deregulation by expanding regulations' plan and his 'make permanent the Land and Water Conservation Fund' plan. If they don't like it it's their stupidity. When Washington DC is a radioactive wasteland and we are eating rats for food, they will only have themselves to blame. At least I will not be culpable via failing to warn them.

[Brett85]

His comments about Ukraine/Russia and his support for air strikes against ISIS proves that Rand Paul is a part-time warmonger just like you. The only reason he still has our support is his dad Ron Paul. Plain and simple. ANY OTHER POLITICIAN would earn our ire just like Rafael Cruz is earning. That is the ONLY difference. Rand Paul should get down on his knees at the end of each day and thank the lord for his dad.

That's funny. My family/friends think that I'm some kind of hardcore pacifist who doesn't believe in using military force and doesn't want to defend the country. The media also portrays Rand as some kind of hardcore pacifist. It's funny that neither the hardcore neocons or the hardcore libertarians can recognize that there can actually be some amount of nuance in foreign policy.

[Brett85]

Is Jack Hunter some kind of hardcore warmonger as well? Rand and I are both in the second group, which is the group within the Republican Party which supports a more restrained foreign policy.


Currently, most Republicans probably fall under one of two broad categories regarding foreign policy.

1. Those who believe that George W. Bush did the right thing with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, President Obama has not fought the War on Terror aggressively enough, and the threat of the Islamic State is justification enough to fight the same types of wars again if we must.

2. Those who believe Iraq was probably a mistake, Afghanistan went on for too long and the threat of ISIS should be met with force, but should also not lead us to making the same kind of foreign policy mistakes.

http://rare.us/story/republicans-can-never-reduce-spending-until-they-adopt-a-different-foreign-policy/

[Brett85]

I may have kind of jumped the gun on the ISIS stuff as well, because honestly since I'm not a member of Congress and don't have access to intelligence reports, I don't really know whether or not ISIS actually presents a real and imminent threat to our national security or not. I think I made the mistake of believing that ISIS was some kind of major threat to our national security without realizing that there's really no way I can actually know that, since I haven't looked at all the evidence. I haven't looked at the intelligence reports to know whether or not ISIS is plotting an attack against the United States and whether they have the capability of carrying out that attack. If they're a legitimate threat to our national security and are plotting to attack us and take us out, then it would be an act of self defense to take them out, and I would support declaring war against them. But since I haven't seen the intelligence reports I probably jumped the gun on taking such a strong stance on that issue. But perhaps Rand has seen intelligence reports that show that ISIS is a legitimate and imminent threat to our national security. I don't know.

[GunnyFreedom]

Everything went better than expected. A couple Cruz fans were saying the story made them not trust Cruz, until a battalion of "Cruz is a CFR scumbag!!" types scared them away caused the Cruz fans to retrench, and basically made them impossible to reach. I'm telling ya, we are our own biggest enemy. Is it really so hard to see a post you agree with and NOT jump on it trying to offend the snot out of everyone else? Honestly, every single damn time I'm making real progress turning a mainliner, neocon, or a liberal, I get freaking beset by the libertarian albatross who makes it their mission in life to piss everyone off who doesn't already agree with them. SMDH.

[GunnyFreedom]

"Oh look! Hurr durr there is an anti-Cruz thread, and he's actually convincing Republicans that Cruz is bad news! Let's jump right in that thread and start screaming, 'CRUZ IS A PIECE OF SHIIIIIIIIITTTT!!' Hurr durr! We are so awesome!"

[Natural Citizen]

I may have kind of jumped the gun on the ISIS stuff as well, because honestly since I'm not a member of Congress and don't have access to intelligence reports, I don't really know whether or not ISIS actually presents a real and imminent threat to our national security or not. I think I made the mistake of believing that ISIS was some kind of major threat to our national security without realizing that there's really no way I can actually know that, since I haven't looked at all the evidence. I haven't looked at the intelligence reports to know whether or not ISIS is plotting an attack against the United States and whether they have the capability of carrying out that attack. If they're a legitimate threat to our national security and are plotting to attack us and take us out, then it would be an act of self defense to take them out, and I would support declaring war against them. But since I haven't seen the intelligence reports I probably jumped the gun on taking such a strong stance on that issue. But perhaps Rand has seen intelligence reports that show that ISIS is a legitimate and imminent threat to our national security. I don't know.

US defeat! Russia to lead UN probe into ISIS funding (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?456224-72-points-of-BRICS-Summit-Declaration&p=5775836&viewfull=1#post5775836)