Here's an opinion piece sure to set some people's teeth on edge. For the record, I agree completely with Dr Paul. The only problem I see regarding the situation in the Crimea is that our boy king has gotten us involved in it.

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.

OUR VIEW: Show Putin the high cost of conquest

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.

Though the Obama administration has applied some minimal sanctions on selected Russian and Crimean individuals, neither the U.S. nor the EU can afford significant sanctions against Russia. Global trade provides too much economic benefit to both sides.

Indeed, international markets rallied on news that the sanctions would be thus far minimal. They understand that trade and economic engagement are the surest roads to peace and prosperity. Let's hope governments will follow their lead.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...ebates/6544163/

The problem with this dudes logic is at what point do we get involved with anything? Now that the Soviets are being allowed to get the band back together, how long until the Chinamen decide they can take all the disputed territories they want around Japan? Does Israel matter or should it just be taken over by it's neighbors because they want to?

Pauls one dimensional thinking is fine for the drugged out frat boys who worship him, but it falls apart when you take it to it's logical conclusion. A powerless US letting thugs and dictators set the agenda for world commerce and security.

Is the Right a Fan of Putin?

Americans sometimes forget who their real enemies are. As some far-right American extremists side with Vladimir Putin’s bloodthirsty incursion into Ukraine, thinking he is somehow a “misunderstood” kindred spirit, a little review of history may be helpful.

On February 20, 1939, Madison Square Garden in New York City overflowed with more than 20,000 convention attendees. Before the assembled throng on the dais, beneath an enormous bronze eagle, was a fifty-foot-tall standing image of George Washington, flanked by four American flags of equal length.

What the attendees found inspiring about the first president was the number of African-American slaves he had owned. They were Nazis, you see, known as the German-American Bund (“GAB”), and their allegiance was to Adolf Hitler. They lovingly praised Washington as the “First Fascist.”

They had convened in New York to denounce the “Jew Deal,” their way of characterizing President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s controversial New Deal policies, which they believed were being implemented by a “Bolshevik-Jewish” cabal in Washington, D.C. Three years later, groups of German Nazi saboteurs supported by the GAB landed in Florida and New York with plans to foment terror and undermine the U.S. government. The units were apprehended and the members executed or jailed.

You’ll have a great deal of trouble finding a story about Japanese-Americans during World War II that is remotely as horrifying as the story about the Germans. Yet it was the Japanese and not the Germans who were rounded up by the thousands and chucked into concentration camps to keep them from undermining the U.S. war effort.

This brings us to modern-day extremists like Ron Paul (whose pro-Putin words were trumpeted on the Kremlin’s Russia Today propaganda network) and Pat Buchanan, men who look up to Putin the same way the GAB's "bundesfúhrer" Fritz Julius Kuhn looked up to Hitler, and who seek to organize American cabals that support Putin and his neo-Soviet crackdown both at home and abroad. Summarizing their feelings, Ron Dreher writes: “Putin may be a cold-eyed cynic, but he’s also onto something.”

And then there’s Rand Paul, who was for Putin until he was against him. On February 26, WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin scathingly reported on how Rand was kissing up to Putin as the latter unsheathed his knives in Ukraine. Apparently Rand, who’d like to be the next U.S. president, got the message, though, and just two weeks later, he suddenly changed his tune and penned a scorching anti-Putin diatribe in Time magazine, calling Obama out for his weakness and appeasement on Russia.

Maybe Rand had got wind of the fact that a leading conservative group, Concerned Women of America, was so disgusted by Putin’s aggression in Ukraine that it pulled out of the “Pro-Life Olympics” being hosted by Moscow this year. Or maybe he just saw that a host of other leading Republicans, from Ted Cruz to Paul Ryan to Marco Rubio, had taken tough lines on Putin.

Indeed, just as Americans rejected Rand’s father at the polls for president, they reject his line on Putin. Nearly 70% of Americans see Russia as a serious threat to U.S. security and disapprove of Putin. Mitt Romney’s stance on Russia as a major geopolitical enemy of the USA has been conclusively proved correct, and Obama’s policy of appeasement indicted as foolhardy and dangerous. So Rand Paul is scampering towards the Reaganites just as fast as ever he can.

The right-wing extremists are saying that the USA “lost Russia,” that Russia has a “legitimate security interest” in a leased naval base (in Sevastopol) that isn’t even on Russian territory – a lease signed by a maniacal dictator who has just been deposed and impeached – and that Putin is only reacting to the unreasonable expansion of the NATO alliance up to his doorstep.

How such men can call themselves “conservatives” while at the same time essentially embracing the failed “reset” policy of Barack Obama is very hard to understand. They ignore the fact that Ukraine was forced to disarm and promised, by Russia, in writing, in exchange that its territory, including Crimea, would be permanently inviolate.

Such folks claim that if only NATO had left places like Poland and the Czech Republic and Estonia as sitting ducks for Putin’s army, he would never have been motivated to start going after places like Ukraine that were left out of the NATO fold, much less after any of them. As long as he was confident, in other words, that he could grab any one of them, he’d be satisfied. And if the people who lived in those countries had to have a few sleepless nights, well, that’d be a small price to pay for peace in our time.

None of these folks ever write about Putin’s crazed and benighted policies having “lost the USA” despite the Obama administration’s efforts to implement a “reset.” They don’t talk about how Putin “lost Germany” despite the fact that over 80% of Germans (German-language link) now believe that Russia is not a trustworthy partner. They never assert that NATO has a “legitimate security interest” in Ukraine, which borders not one, but three NATO members. And they don’t pause even for a second to consider that if Putin is willing to risk global war in order to annex Ukraine, he might have been similarly bold in regard to places like Poland if NATO security guarantees were not in place.

It’s all very psychological. It’s so comforting to think about Putin as being not evil, but merely misunderstood, such that a little adjustment in our attitude would end his reign of terror. The alternative – that Putin is a megalomaniac bent on regional domination at any cost – means that we would actually have to gird our loins, step up, and do battle. What’s more, men like Buchanan and Paul seem to find Putin’s state-sponsored religion, crackdown on dissent, racism, and homophobia rather attractive.

Make no mistake: advocating appeasement on Russia is very dangerous. A recent poll by CNN indicated that Americans strongly support tough economic sanctions on Russia if Putin does not pull out of Ukraine, and this no doubt reflects the public’s rejection of Obama’s leadership; barely 40% now approve of him. However, the same poll indicated that Americans don’t support an economic aid package to Ukraine, much less arming it, likely because they overwhelmingly reject sending U.S. military forces to Ukraine and believe that direct support to Ukraine would encourage a war into which U.S. forces might be drawn.

It’s the scare tactics used by the likes of the Buchanan brigades that give rise to such misguided notions. Ronald Reagan understood that the only way to stop war is through a show of strength, not weakness. But of course, when bombarded by weakness and complicity from both the right and left, Americans can easily become distracted.

In 2008, John McCain called for confrontation of Russia, while Obama called for conciliation. McCain’s VP, Sarah Palin, predicted that if we followed Obama’s course, Russia would soon be in the Ukraine. Now it is there, and McCain’s call to oust Russia from the G-8 is being implemented. Will we allow the likes of Buchanan and Paul to distract us from the mission at hand?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/i...n_of_putin.html

Seriously, Eglman, that is one of the lowest and vilest opinion pieces I have ever read and I am generally a fan of American Thinker. It is so beneath your usual high quality I am just shocked.

(1) To equate Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan with the pre-WWII German Bund is not only baseless but is also contemptible. Both of these men have served their country honorably and loyally for years, one as a Congressman, the other as a speechwriter for President Reagan. The fact he and you may disagree with them on Crimea or any other foreign policy matter does NOT make them Neo-Nazis.

(2)To this writer they are, of course, "extremists", a favorite ad hominem of the Left, because they disagree with him on policy in the Crimea. How truly despicable.

(3)He states, Nearly 70% of Americans see Russia as a serious threat to U.S. security and disapprove of Putin. Really? In what way is Russia "a serious threat to U.S. security"? Since you chose to cite him would you care to explain that comment? As for "disapprove of Putin", my IP is a cable company with operations scattered far and wide. It did a poll which asked, Do you think Crimea should be allowed to leave Ukraine and join Russia?. The results (vox populi):
Unsure 14%
No 37%
Yes 49%

http://www.charter.net/news/read/article...ials_of_crim-ap

Doesn't sound to me like the subscribers to Charter Communications are particularly concerned about Putin and they represent a pretty balanced representation of our populace.

(4)They never assert that NATO has a “legitimate security interest” in Ukraine, which borders not one, but three NATO members. Uh huh. And? Ukraine is not a member of NATO. So now you and he think we ought do what? Go to war for a country for which we have no legal obligation? Talk about the world's policeman. No thanks.

Moreover, this scare tactic, for which there is no evidence, makes the same mistake Frank Cannon and others continue to make; namely, Putin has moved into Crimea, therefore he wants to take over the world. And if not him, everyone else: The problem with this dudes logic is at what point do we get involved with anything? Now that the Soviets are being allowed to get the band back together, how long until the Chinamen decide they can take all the disputed territories they want around Japan? Does Israel matter or should it just be taken over by it's neighbors because they want to?

How about we deal with what is actually going on at the moment and leave the geopolitical fantasies for another day? (Btw, Frank, they aren't "Soviets". That was terminology used by the prior Communist government).

(5) It’s the scare tactics used by the likes of the Buchanan brigades that give rise to such misguided notions. I am not quite sure what Buchanan's "scare tactics" are since he never list them, and I have yet to see any; but I do see this writer trying to tie Buchanan to the Nazis and claiming Putin is a threat to US security. So I have to ask myself (and you): just who is that is using "scare tactics"?

Sorry to shock you Cinci--but just showing that there are other opinions besides Ron's and Pat's and I do not totally agree with the opinion piece I posted--The brand of Isolationism that ron spouts is dangerous I lean more to the Reagan Model of Foreign Policy--that is peace through Strength and that action of aggression by countries must be dealt with or you will have every tin horn dictator invading those around them

Not true: Better than I put it !

You took a different tack pointing out an element to this I had failed to consider: the NeoCon angle.

Plus you made this observation which is both amusing yet chilling at the same time (a neat hat trick, that): Why should our enemies fear us, when we don't even secure our borders and haven't for decades under both D's and R's ?

Sorry to shock you Cinci--but just showing that there are other opinions besides Ron's and Pat's and I do not totally agree with the opinion piece I posted--The brand of Isolationism that ron spouts is dangerous I lean more to the Reagan Model of Foreign Policy--that is peace through Strength and that action of aggression by countries must be dealt with or you will have every tin horn dictator invading those around them

Whatever you may lean toward, and I don't doubt your sincerity at all, you really should be more discriminating in what you choose to express it. Posting an article which implies Pat Buchanan and Dr Ron Paul are similar to members of the pre-WWII German Bund is truly beneath you.

Well I could not find an article that implies Pat Buchanan and Dr Ron Paul are the Foreign Policy idiots they are so I had to post that one

I am human so I am entitled to a discriminating mistake every now so then please forgive me

I am human so I am entitled to a discriminating mistake every now so then please forgive me

Well, ok, Eglman, but some flowers or even some candy might have been nice.

Quote: Eglman wrote in post #8

---

Sorry to shock you Cinci--but just showing that there are other opinions besides Ron's and Pat's and I do not totally agree with the opinion piece I posted--The brand of Isolationism that ron spouts is dangerous I lean more to the Reagan Model of Foreign Policy--that is peace through Strength and that action of aggression by countries must be dealt with or you will have every tin horn dictator invading those around them

---

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #14

---

Having said that I don't want America fighting the Russians over Crimea. If the Crimeans don't want Russia, they sure aren't showing it.

The rest of Ukraine on the other hand, does NOT want Russian intervention. The price we pay to keep the rest of the world free really sucks sometimes. Especially now.

---