Congress Votes to Bring Ukraine to Heel-381-2... Massie and Jones Vote NO

[compromise]

I used to be unconcerned by stuff like this, but there's a very similar bill about India with over 40 co-sponsors ranging from the most progressive Dems (Keith Ellison) to the most conservative Repubs (Trey Gowdy) that basically delves into the realm of conspiracy theory in its vehement condemnation. It's the sort of thing you'd expect to see on RPF Hot Topics, not in Congress, and will severely damage future relations with India if it does pass. Campaigning against that bill is what really turned me against the use of such legislation against neutral & friendly nations.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

"The text, adopted in a 381-2 vote, says that the House supports “the Ukrainian people's struggle to build an independent, democratic, and strong Ukraine that is free from foreign meddling.”

http://www.dawn.com/news/1086309/us-house-votes-in-support-of-ukraines-people

The irony and hypocrisy in that highlighted statement is almost unbelievable.

 

[DFF]

Tangling with Ukraine is by extension tangling with Russia - not a good idea.

 

[RandallFan]

Maybe Amash was worried about Ellis using it like the North Korea vote.

 

[Brett85]

I just don't see how speaking out against something that another country does is actually "intervention." To me, intervention is invading a foreign country, bombing them, placing sanctions on them, giving foreign aid to them, etc. I really don't see how words can actually be intervention. To me it seems more like isolationism than non interventionism to say that we can't even speak out against human rights abuses going on around the world.

 

[TaftFan]

I just don't see how speaking out against something that another country does is actually "intervention." To me, intervention is invading a foreign country, bombing them, placing sanctions on them, giving foreign aid to them, etc. I really don't see how words can actually be intervention. To me it seems more like isolationism than non interventionism to say that we can't even speak out against human rights abuses going on around the world.

That is my feeling. And I'm not an isolationist so I have no real problem with the resolution.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That is my feeling. And I'm not an isolationist so I have no real problem with the resolution.

There is that word again. Why do you think it's isolationist to not believe it is any business of our government to tell another nation what they should or shouldn't be doing? How is keeping our nose out of their internal affairs, but trading, traveling and being friends with them, in any way isolationist?

I'm not up in arms about this piece of legislation, but I do think at best, it's stupid. Why should Ukraine give a rat's ass what our overpaid, corrupt, "public servants" think about how they think things should be done in THEIR country? But, I also know that it's this type of BS that often leads to taking further steps and our government inserting themselves further In Ukraine's business.

You clearly have a different definition of "isolationism" than I do. So, are you telling us that you are an interventionist? A person who believes it's fine for our government to send our military to intervene in the affair of other nations who have not attacked us, nor poses an immediate threat?

 

[TaftFan]

There is that word again. Why do you think it's isolationist to not believe it is any business of our government to tell another nation what they should or shouldn't be doing? How is keeping our nose out of their internal affairs, but trading, traveling and being friends with them, in any way isolationist?

I'm not up in arms about this piece of legislation, but I do think at best, it's stupid. Why should Ukraine give a rat's ass what our overpaid, corrupt, "public servants" think about how they think things should be done in THEIR country? But, I also know that it's this type of BS that often leads to taking further steps and our government inserting themselves further In Ukraine's business.

You clearly have a different definition of "isolationism" than I do. So, are you telling us that you are an interventionist? A person who believes it's fine for our government to send our military to intervene in the affair of other nations who have not attacked us, nor poses an immediate threat?

I really don't personally care, but I am not in Congress. I'm fine with Congress having opinions about what is going on in the world with other countries. I think it is their business.

You and others don't seem to have a problem with international relations as long as we agree with what others are doing, only when we disagree does an issue arise.

"It's none of our business" is an isolationist attitude. I didn't say it was a protectionist attitude.

I don't support an interventionist action towards Ukraine. I consider myself a non-interventionist. I probably take a more hawkish world view (I think America causes a lot of trouble but also recognize others do too) than most here but I don't think we should intervene militarily unless we are being attacked or threatened.

 

[Brett85]

There is that word again. Why do you think it's isolationist to not believe it is any business of our government to tell another nation what they should or shouldn't be doing? How is keeping our nose out of their internal affairs, but trading, traveling and being friends with them, in any way isolationist?

I'm not up in arms about this piece of legislation, but I do think at best, it's stupid. Why should Ukraine give a rat's ass what our overpaid, corrupt, "public servants" think about how they think things should be done in THEIR country? But, I also know that it's this type of BS that often leads to taking further steps and our government inserting themselves further In Ukraine's business.

You clearly have a different definition of "isolationism" than I do. So, are you telling us that you are an interventionist? A person who believes it's fine for our government to send our military to intervene in the affair of other nations who have not attacked us, nor poses an immediate threat?

Lol. Where did you get that from? He and I were simply saying that words are not intervention. You can speak out against human rights abuses going on around the world without being in favor of using force against the countries engaging in these human rights abuses.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I really don't personally care, but I am not in Congress. I'm fine with Congress having opinions about what is going on in the world with other countries. I think it is their business.

You and others don't seem to have a problem with international relations as long as we agree with what others are doing, only when we disagree does an issue arise.

"It's none of our business" is an isolationist attitude. I didn't say it was a protectionist attitude.

No, it's not. Not wanting anything to do with other countries is isolationist. I consider myself a non-interventionist.

I don't support an interventionist action towards Ukraine. I consider myself a non-interventionist. I probably take a more hawkish world view (I think America causes a lot of trouble but also recognize others do too) than most here but I don't think we should intervene militarily unless we are being attacked or threatened.

I'm big on national defense. I agree with your last sentence. How do you see that as different than what I said? You must believe in intervening in some way, or you wouldn't be calling my statement isolationist. I am all for American citizens helping out another country if they so choose; trading, traveling, whatever. I just do not think it should be the role of government to spend taxpayer money aiding another country or intervening in any way, actually.

But, I find it rather discouraging to see you using the term, isolationist, so carelessly. It is what they tried to hang around Ron's neck and they're already tried to do the same with Rand. Neither are isolationists.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Lol. Where did you get that from? He and I were simply saying that words are not intervention. You can speak out against human rights abuses going on around the world without being in favor of using force against the countries engaging in these human rights abuses.

I don't think it is our government's role to do that. The people, sure. Run ads if you want to. Fly a plane over the Ukraine and drop leaflets. lol.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not an isolationist so I have no real problem with the resolution.

You clearly have a different definition of "isolationism" than I do. So, are you telling us that you are an interventionist?

Lol. Where did you get that from? He and I were simply saying that words are not intervention.

That's not what TaftFan was "simply saying."
TaftFan clearly implied (whether he meant to or not) that "having a problem with the resolution" is "isolationist."

LE can correct me if I am wrong, but I think what she was getting at is that if opposition to things like this nonbinding resolution can be called "isolationist," then support for it could just as (in)validly be called "interventionist" ...

IOW: While it may be that "words are not intervention," by the same token "lack of words" (by "keeping your mouth shut about things that aren't any of your business") is NOT "isolation" ...

 

[Czolgosz]

I don't think it is our government's role to do that. The people, sure. Run ads if you want to. Fly a plane over the Ukraine and drop leaflets. lol.

This.

 

[69360]

It's a sense of congress resolution. It does absolutely nothing. They are pointless and a waste of time.

 

[compromise]

That is my feeling. And I'm not an isolationist so I have no real problem with the resolution.

I understand passing stuff like this against countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Brotherhood-era Egypt, but is Ukraine really worthy of US condemnation here?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is about Putin and nothing else. The funny thing is that the butt-hurt Marxists can still so easily manipulate so many people. If they frame their vendetta with some kind of "outrage" (real or exaggerated), everyone jumps on board like an angry mob chasing Frankenstein's monster.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Tangling with Ukraine is by extension tangling with Russia - not a good idea.

Exactly, but that's the hidden part of the agenda.

 

[Brett85]

I don't think it is our government's role to do that. The people, sure. Run ads if you want to. Fly a plane over the Ukraine and drop leaflets. lol.

Why is it not our government's role to do that? Does liberty only apply to people in the United States? I definitely don't think we can spread freedom and liberty around the world with force, but what exactly is wrong with our government simply speaking out in favor of liberty? Of course our government actually needs to lead by example, and freedom needs to be restored in our own country. But as a general principle it certainly doesn't seem to me like our government speaking out in favor of liberty for people in other countries is an example of "intervention." Words are not intervention. Words are not force.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Why is it not our government's role to do that? Does liberty only apply to people in the United States? I definitely don't think we can spread freedom and liberty around the world with force, but what exactly is wrong with our government simply speaking out in favor of liberty? Of course our government actually needs to lead by example, and freedom needs to be restored in our own country. But as a general principle it certainly doesn't seem to me like our government speaking out in favor of liberty for people in other countries is an example of "intervention." Words are not intervention. Words are not force.

Seriously, our government is spying on every man, woman and child in America. Do you honestly believe that they have liberty down well enough to be telling ANYONE how to do it?

Beyond that, they are members of the U.S. government; not the government of any other country. They can set an example that others may want to follow, but that's the extent of it. And right now, they aren't setting a good example of anything at all, besides a once free country becoming more and more totalitarian.

That's not what TaftFan was "simply saying."
TaftFan clearly implied (whether he meant to or not) that "having a problem with the resolution" is "isolationist."

LE can correct me if I am wrong, but I think what she was getting at is that if opposition to things like this nonbinding resolution can be called "isolationist," then support for it could just as (in)validly be called "interventionist" ...

IOW: While it may be that "words are not intervention," by the same token "lack of words" (by "keeping your mouth shut about things that aren't any of your business") is NOT "isolation" ...

Yup. Thanks Occam.

It's a sense of congress resolution. It does absolutely nothing. They are pointless and a waste of time.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why is it not our government's role to do that? Does liberty only apply to people in the United States? I definitely don't think we can spread freedom and liberty around the world with force, but what exactly is wrong with our government simply speaking out in favor of liberty? Of course our government actually needs to lead by example, and freedom needs to be restored in our own country. But as a general principle it certainly doesn't seem to me like our government speaking out in favor of liberty for people in other countries is an example of "intervention." Words are not intervention. Words are not force.

To me, the problem here is twofold:

First of all, our government needs to lead by example, as you point out. Until they do so, they just make us look like hypocrites and don't accomplish anything.

Second of all, I don't think its the job of the government to spend time or money condemning other countries for any reason. Its our job.

All that said, I don't necessarily think that this is that big a deal. I don't blame Amash too much for voting for it. All in all, I prefer Massie's vote, though.