Russia should not be sanctioned!

Disclaimer: Let's try to be friends here and not call each other's claims: 'fallacious' I provided full evidence that proved how the already broken economy would break. Don't speak like this anymore, people might think you're pompous. I read your counter argument and saw something that made me tear out every hair on my head: Churchill wanted more action against Hitler... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ON THE HOLOCAUST OR ANY OTHER ELEMENT OF WORLD WAR 2. THERE WILL BE NO MORE TALK OF THIS SUBJECT IN THIS DEBATE. Now that that's out of the way: I would like to start with refuting your argument, I will do the rest later. ,,Ever heard about the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances? I don"t exactly think it is a "treaty", but an agreement, which is rather serious when it involves nukes. Do you think when Ukraine disarms and has no defense, and this happens, do you think that Nuke Nations would hold on to their nukes? Do you think that Russia would make a move if Ukraine had nukes? The issue here is that Russia can go back on their word. They can take, and they can steal. This is why we need the sanctions. They might sting, but so does World War 3.' Why are we even bringing this up? It's Russia's annexation of Crimea that's the subject matter here, not Russia's military arsenal. Also, the budapest memorandum on security assurances does not apply to the Crimea crisis because separation of Crimea was driven by an internal political and social-economic crisis (this statement was provided from the link YOU provided.) Russia isn't planning on starting world war 3. Crimea voted on a referendum and decided to join Russia. 97% of the Crimean population is russian...You're stating that we should punish an already broken country for an act that would in all other cases be considered tolerable? Let's look at a highly-talked-about subject-ISRAEL. Israel did precisely what Russia is doing in Palestine, only they did it by force and against the will of the population (much more like the dritten reich). If we do choose to sanction Russia, we should do the same to Israel. NOW, let's begin with your starting counter-arguments and refute the refutations (always wanted to say that). ,,America doesn't really profit from this. I read your round. You are basically repeating yourself. And I will say the same thing. If X Company did work in Nazi Germany, should America stop to think, "Hey, this might hurt us."? No. Of course, Russia is kinda breaking International Law here. And, Putin's arguments for annexation echo the annexation of Austria.' ,,America doesn't really profit from this.' Yet more words of self-harm. In my argument I stated that america doesn't profit, in fact, they lose lobbies and businesses... Again, please don't compare this to the acts of the third reich, it's ludicrous. Also, you should probably go back to school and learn more about world war 2. America didn't join the war until 1941, before that they fully cooperated with the third reich. They only joined the war after the bombing of pearl harbour and after they were substantially gifted by the allies. America's factories continued working for the first three years of the war. Russia is not breaking internation law. The annexation of Crimea was fully legal and ethical. If most of the population wishes to join Russia, let them. Te annexation of AUSTRIA however is another matter entirely. Not only was the government of Austria strictly pro-nazi, but the wehrmarcht seemed to contribute as well. ,,Because of times like these. You don"t really want to be tied to a nation that boldly taken a part of another nation. ' Unless that nation provides 10% of your GDP... Germany (and the rest of the EU) would be plunged into deficit if this came to pass... ,,Talking out of the blue, but no one really important, except maybe Churchill (I think?), wanted more action against Hitler. So what's your point?' I already addressed how incredibly idiotic this comment is...my point was that only America supports the sanctions against Russia, don't bring good ol' Winston into this and please stop comparing Putin to Hitler... ,,Alas, that thought was relevant in the 1930's. Where there is smoke, there's fire.' In the 1930's, as I said before, america was doing full business with nazi germany (need we forget that the Hindenburg zeppelin's last flight was New York?) Russia's actions cannot be compared to the actions of nazi germany. Austria, back then, was led by pro-nationalist socialist extremists who mostly forced the population to accept the forced annexation. Not to mention, Austria was its own independent country while Crimea is a small peninsula that, by international law, belongs to Russia. ,,The sanctions are a reminder to Putin that the World will not have another Hitler. And to make Crimea unprofitable. And, by not doing stuff, you hurt the Ukraine citizens who live in Crimea. Also, try taking back a gift at Christmas, and see where that got you. Doubly so when said person who you taken from gave their nukes in exchange for have their borders intact, which, yes, Russia broke.' So really we'll be punishing Russia for Putin's actions. As I said a while ago, do you think that economical sanctions would have stopped nazi germany? A country that was, from 1918, bankrupt and forbidden from having any type of arsenal? There are precisely 4% of ukranians living on crimea, 1% of which voted to join Russia...Let them stay there or let them leave, it's their choice. In addition to your whole christmas gift comparison (I'm jewish for the record), Imagine if it turned out that you accidentaly put your one of your favourite toys in there and a little tiny piece for the receiver, what would you do? Russia didn't break any agreement, the Budapest memorandum does not apply in this situation. Crimea was always an object of doubt. The Budapest Memorandum is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory. In return, Russia essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state, which Russia did not break, they simply peacefully took an area that wished to join them. It is an unofficial treaty and has no means of enforcement. ,,Putin did? Or did he SAY he did? I would like a source on the matter that isn't an opionon piece.' I'm afraid I could not find an english source...I only found a slovenian one...sorry for the inconvenience, but it's where I read about Putin warning the separatists. You can google translate it if you want. http://razvoj.vecer.com... IF THIS LINK IS NOT SATISFACTORY, LAY THIS ARGUMENT ASIDE, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. ,,Doesn't matter.' I'm afraid it does. There was no russian military intervention. The russian military was always stationed on the borders and according to recent sources, they have returned to their bases. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... ,,One of your many appeals to emotion. Also, Russia's Military isn't doing too hot. They are not push-overs, but there is no "competition" in the sense you are thinking. Please stay on topic.' No my friend, you stay on topic and stop with your constant comparisons to world war 2. You are CONSTANTLY attempting to appeal to those who are aware of its horrors-therefore appealing to emotion. My arguments are simply based on the fact that America seems to be the only country that supports these sanctions, completely unaware that it might destroy their economy or just plain irrational. Russia's military is no subject matter, stay focused. I brought this up in the first place to emphasise America's need to be superior. But obviously this does not belong in this debate, so let's just abandon that. The russian military was never involved in any business in Ukraine, it was the pro-russian separatists. America also seems to be considering military intervention, which is totally absurd. The business in Lugansk and Doneck is understood, but this is not the subject matter either. Our debate is based on why Russia should not be sanctioned. I gave irrefutable facts, black on white, which you ignored, instead focusing on my side-arguments, which I only included to expose America's position. This is an economical debate, if you cease with the politics/warfare, so will I. ,,It's not, though. And, ironically Ukraine isn't too peaceful either.' Ukraine is not peaceful because of the protests from both extremes, the pro-ukranians and the pro-russians. Both of these groups are illegal and should be shut down, stop trying to connect Russia with them. If someone misplaced their book in someone else's bag and wanted it back, which the owner of the back would refuse and a third party would then beat up the latter, would you blame the owner of the book? ,,You haven't shown how so. Just what may happen? ' Oh, but I have. Economical ties would break, GDP's would fall at extreme levels. The WORLD would be plunged into deficit. Were all my previous arguments invalid? I have a feeling they were in your head. ,,Yep. That would be a case where you break out the good-old war. If Russia invades Poland again...Then there will be a Third World War. But because doing nothing is better? I want voters to notice the Appeals to Emotion and subtle Appeals to Ignorance, that we don"t know HOW Russia would react, they might get angry, etc..' Russia would not invade Poland, we all know how that turned out for them. We would be damaging ourselves more if we did sanction it.There were no appeals to emotion in my arguments, more so in yours.