Let me know if you'd rather live as a female in the United States or Afghanistan under the Taliban.
You still haven't answered the questions. Is your name John Kerry perhaps? You seem naive enough about geopolitics to be our Secretary of State, though I'm guessing not, since your posts aren't ten paragraphs of rambling gibberish.
You can't put NATO/EU "observers" in harms way without answering some really hard questions that you're glossing over. You've also glossed over the political reality in Europe and North America, which is presently disinclined (to say the least) to engage in interventionism of any kind.
I suggested strategically placed personnel (observers) that would render any offensive action an act of war by Russia.
You can't put boots on the ground in the Ukraine without answering the questions I posed to you in the previous message. Actually you need to answer a lot of questions beyond those, but that's beside the point. What happens if you deploy them and Putin seizes more territory? Do they engage the Russian forces? Call Washington/Brussels/wherever and ask for instructions? Have you given this any thought at all besides "Since not even Putin is crazy enough to do that"???
Excellent idea by the way, rolling the dice on war with a nuclear armed state, relying on the sanity of Vladamir Putin to keep things from escalating out of control. What could possibly go wrong?
You're dangerously close to being an apologist for one of the most atrocious regimes of modern times.
Helsinki is less than one hundred miles away from the Russian border. I suppose it's possible that a modern day Russian would make yesterday's mistake of wasting manpower in the forest meat grinders rather than focusing on the population center in the South, but I wouldn't count on it. The analogy would be the United States invading Canada. Sure, it's a big country, but 90% of the population lives within one hundred miles of the American border. A fat lot of good holding onto the Northwest Territories will do you when the American flag flies over Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver.
In any case, you got way ahead of yourself. Putin isn't going to invade Finland, Poland, or the Baltic States. The former is a member of the EU and the latter are members of NATO.
I tried to pay for my tank of gasoline with the moral high ground but the clerk told me they only accept US Dollars.
Parallels do fall down though in many other ways.
Here's the big one: Hitler's grand design was to obtain Lebensraum for the German people, at the expense of the subhuman Slavs to the East. Putin's grand design is to reassert Russia's influence in those areas she has traditionally regarded as being within her sphere of influence. He doesn't care if neighboring countries have dictatorships or liberal democracies, so long as they toe Moscow's line, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. He doesn't regard his neighbors as Untermensch to be enslaved or exterminated.
None of this is to suggest that the West should acquiesce to the de-facto annexation of Crimea, but we really do need to dispense with the hyperbolic WW2 analogies.
What part of "Do you think you'll find popular opinion in support of taking on a country with 8,000 nuclear weapons...." did you not understand? Do you honestly believe there is popular support for the course of action that you describe? The Ukraine isn't a member of the EU or NATO, public opinion in both Europe and the United States is opposed to further interventionist adventures, and it's debatable that NATO (never mind the EU) has the military wherewithal to oppose Russia in her backyard if push came to shove without resorting to nuclear weapons.
But hey, let's ignore all of that and deploy some troops anyway. Which rules of engagement do you propose they operate under? Will we secure the entire Russian/Ukrainian border or just stick some boots in Kiev and see what happens? Will we engage Russian aircraft operating in Ukrainian airspace? How will you handle Ukrainian military units that defect? Most important: How do you propose to manage the escalation of tensions to prevent World War 3 if Putin decides to throw more chips into the pot?
However, the problem is that the school boards have also allowed exclusions for "religious or personal beliefs", which is a crock.
Exemptions for religious beliefs are a crock? Those are well supported in the case law. School boards allow them because the case law says they'll lose if they try to fight it in Court and most school districts don't have spare cash laying around to throw at lawyers.
The General Welfare clause is part of the taxing and spending power, it's not a license for the Federal Government to mandate behaviors on the part of the general populace. Even the current administration didn't try and argue the General Welfare Clause authorized their insurance mandate and they take a very broad view (by American standards) of Governmental power.
There were exactly three, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates, not Yemen as I said in the previous post. Saudi Arabia and the UAE withdrew their recognition after 9/11.
Better than the alternative, though one would kind of have to admire the second guy for his forthrightness.
But just make vaccinations mandatory
Devil's advocate: What part of the United States Constitution (or even the Constitution of one of the 50 States) authorizes the Government to compel vaccination? It's "compelled" through requirements to vaccinate your children before they can attend public school, which has passed muster, but an outright mandate absent no other interaction with the State? Where does such authority come from?
No more BS opting out on religious grounds
That wouldn't pass Constitutional muster even if you can find authority to mandate vaccinations.
A far more effective IMHO (and Constitutional) way to encourage vaccines would be to give the opposed parties an all expenses paid vacation to any part of the Third World that doesn't have access to modern vaccinations. People forget just how horrible some of these diseases truly were. Perhaps it's time to remind them.
The EU doesn't have a military and even NATO is a shadow of what it once was. Besides, it's all a moot point, the nations that make up NATO and the EU are democracies. Do you think you'll find popular opinion in support of taking on a country with 8,000 nuclear weapons over the Crimea or even Ukraine proper?
A useful idea is stronger than the full force of any military and not so easy to destroy
You've missed the point. The USD has value precisely because the United States has a vibrant economy, a large amount of educated human capital, and a strong military. That's the answer to the question of "Why do fiat currencies have value?" I was not suggesting nor trying to imply that the American state could destroy bitcoin or even that it would be desirable to do so.
Bitcoin in its current form is a speculative investment, not a currency. Will Wegmans exchange my bitcoins for groceries? Can I put gasoline in my automobile with bitcoins? Can I buy a plane ticket? Pay for college? Buy stuff from Amazon?
Frankly I think it's a solution looking for a problem. If one wants to buy into the anarchist libertarian philosophy one should be investing in currencies that actually have a store of value (gold), goods that can be traded (non perishable foods, ammunition), or other items (land) that have intrinsic value. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.