US House Votes 348-48 To Arm Ukraine, Russia Warns Lethal Aid Will "Explode The Whole Situation"

thehill.com...

this from 'The Hill' which is pretty official.

I think this is a good idea. We are not provoking aggression, we are enabling people to resist same.
Imagine if someone had given Poland a bunch of tanks and fighters in 1938. might have made a difference?
Not much hope Obama will run with it though. This admin seems to think Russia is a positive and benevolent nation. (Reset!)

the west really sometimes acts like an inbreeding between a gorilla on steroids, a borg, darth vader, mecha-dick-cheney, a zombie werwolf tiger panzer from outer space and a locust.

no peaaccccce
peace doessssssn't bring profitssssssssssssssss

Russia isn't going to invade anyone. Russia invades Ukraine and the US is the one being aggressive?

a reply to: s1ngular1ty

You're right in your assessment of how Russia will take this...unfortunately.

It's a shame, i had hoped that along the way, my young Sons would grow up, fall in love, have a family of their own one day.

Stupid, stupid American politicians.

a reply to: Ancient Champion

No mate, you've misunderstood a critical thing...repeating something so often does not make it true...it just makes it irritatingly boring.

Russia was already in the Crimean peninsular, about 25,000 of them LEGALLY, when the US started the coup in Kiev.

Then came the NAZI death squads, roaming the Eastern provinces employing terror and your typical fascist bully boy tactics perfected by the German Nazis of the 1930's.

Then came the book burnings...anything starting to sound uncomfortably familiar yet? Books written in the Russian language, were to be banned and burnt, further a ban on the Russian language itself, written and spoken was in the works when the Crimeans appealed to Russia, in fact PLEADED FOR HELP would be a more apt description, which Russia provided to their ethnic countrymen.

There was no invasion, unless you mean the US invasion using Ukrainian fascists as pawns...the Russians were already, and LEGALLY (according to written agreement with Ukraine) in the Crimea when this crap happened, so they just held their ground rather...i realise there are several rabid members on here constantly stirring things up about Ukraine, but they're either nuts, shills or have a personal axe to grind, but make your own mind up.

a reply to: MysterX

that's right. europe and russia were prettey good neighbors for a long time till the usa got involved with their "divide et impera" tactic.
ukraine has to remain a neutral state! manipulating their politics first and sending nato weapons later is basically like saying "yo ruskies, ukraine now belongs to the west!".
i doubt russia thinks of this as a good idea as well as the missile shield encircling russia more and more.
but who knows...

The US delivered 10 armored Humvee's to Ukraine today, with a total of 230 to follow, 30 which are heavily armored. My understanding is that Obama is also giving them 75 million in military aid in the form of non lethal equipment i.e.; drones, radar, night vision etc. I'd say it's safe to say that this will not sit well with Russia. The West seems to have one thing in mind, destabilize the region in order to further their multi faceted agenda.

Once again the US is getting involved in a situation that is none of it's @#%& business. Meanwhile Boko Haram is killing, raping and kidnapping women and children in a mass genicide and no one seems to give a crap. Sad to say, the skewed priorities of the political machine are an embarrassment to society in a whole.

a reply to: anticitizen

You mean Soviet union and Europe get along just fine. There are countries who left that union and declared their own independence. Do you think these countries were just fine under Soviet rule, they are now part of Europe you know ?

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: JHumm
The president of "NO" will say yes to Congress this time because it is what we don't need right now ,the only time he will agree with them is when it will cause problems for the country. .

While I agree Obama is the most anti american president ever.

I really don't see how this causes us problems.

We have plenty of surplus hardware just laying around.

Giving it to Ukraine isn't going to effect us, any more than us giving the afghans portable AA launchers in the soviet invasion of Afghanistan did.

Unless decades down the road we invade Ukraine on false pretenses and they use our own hardware against us.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one my friend. Moscow will NOT take kindly to us providing weapons to the Ukranian resistance. They have stated countless times that such a transaction would yield dire consequences. I've also read that Russia would also, in THE most literal sense, deem this to be a direct act of WAR against them. So I have to disagree with you. I can easily see how this would be detrimental to us.

a reply to: s1ngular1ty

Resolutions from congress are not legally binding and are used to establish a position by Congress on issues. This is 300+ members of the House telling Obama their position is to send arms to Ukraine.

If you happen to hail from the "we destabilized the Ukraine on purpose" camp, what's the endgame here? Why was it done for REAL, and what is the outcome they are hoping to achieve? Also, Infowars posted this for a reason. I don't personally believe that it was just pulled out of thin air.

Who exactly are the representatives representing with this vote?

I'm fairly certain that the American people want nothing to do with sending more arms to Ukraine.

The military industrial complex has its claws firmly embedded in U.S. politics.

originally posted by: johnwick


Giving it to Ukraine isn't going to effect us, any more than us giving the afghans portable AA launchers in the soviet invasion of Afghanistan did.

That's a monumentally naive statement.

Arming Ukraine mean invariably that Russia will escalate its effort against Ukraine. At first we shall see that Russia will "get out of the closet" and "officially" get in the battlefield. You know, military aid can come from the other side too, but for this situation, it mean a massive increase from the "covert", if I can say, aid that the Russian actually provide.

Putin will not backoff, Ukraine as a land buffer zone is too important to let go to NATO.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

The only buffer zone that will satisfy that paranoid psychotic is the Atlantic Ocean.

originally posted by: dollukka
I made a search in house of presentatives also the week in congress sites and neither one has anything about the matter and even roll 131 cannot be found.
Link to the house of presentatives you can find in my previous post and
Week in congress

So tell me what you can find ? i still want to see official link to this question

Here's a NYT link:
politics.nytimes.com...

The OP is misleading (if Alex Jones is involved, purposely so)..
The resolution has not passed yet. What we are seeing here is a procedural vote.

originally posted by: Answer
Who exactly are the representatives representing with this vote?

I'm fairly certain that the American people want nothing to do with sending more arms to Ukraine.

The military industrial complex has its claws firmly embedded in U.S. politics.

and here in lies the difference between a democracy, which we are not, and a constitutional representative republic, which we are. If the people have issues then they can fire their respective reps in the next election cycle.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Answer
Who exactly are the representatives representing with this vote?

I'm fairly certain that the American people want nothing to do with sending more arms to Ukraine.

The military industrial complex has its claws firmly embedded in U.S. politics.

and here in lies the difference between a democracy, which we are not, and a constitutional representative republic, which we are. If the people have issues then they can fire their respective reps in the next election cycle.

Those respective reps will just be replaced with more of the same.

originally posted by: s1ngular1ty
If you happen to hail from the "we destabilized the Ukraine on purpose" camp, what's the endgame here? Why was it done for REAL, and what is the outcome they are hoping to achieve? Also, Infowars posted this for a reason. I don't personally believe that it was just pulled out of thin air.

Exactly. What is the End Game?

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
Arming Ukraine mean invariably that Russia will escalate its effort against Ukraine. At first we shall see that Russia will "get out of the closet" and "officially" get in the battlefield. You know, military aid can come from the other side too, but for this situation, it mean a massive increase from the "covert", if I can say, aid that the Russian actually provide.

Putin will not backoff, Ukraine as a land buffer zone is too important to let go to NATO.

You know, before Putin invaded Ukraine, actually no-one seriously thought about Ukraine joining NATO. There were merely long term plans of joining the EU.

Anyway, I'd give a different question - if you claim that Putin will not back off, why should we assume that he is going to be content with a piece of Ukraine?

Think about his position -he get one easy success (annexion of Crimea), and now one a bit harder (conquest of part of eastern Ukraine). Why should he stop?