Been watching this unfold and am kind of surprised at how weak the US and it's Allies responses have been. This is quickly escalating to be a defining moment in history. A cursory understanding of Putin and Russia would lead one to lay odds on them moving to take at least Crimea and then be in the position to really cause trouble for the rest of Ukraine. Russia is "just another large country, albeit a potentially deadly one" without Ukraine, with it, they can be far more of a world force, and they know it.
I can't help but see shades of past despots encroaching on their neighbors. Especially if this happens it will cause massive unrest and violence in Ukraine which will actually enable Putin to become even more of a totalitarian leader in his now larger country and more chaotic country where he will have to "crack down", which will almost definitely put him in the position to want and take lifetime control of the country, a country that is not doing well and will then do worse because it will become more isolated, frustrated and angry, leading it to blame others for its problems, and so on.
Russia has already gone too far. I can't help but think of what Reagan would be doing right now. Already ambassadors would be recalled, he would be addressing the nation and the world using very firm language, challenging the allies to do something and garnering their support, putting US troops on higher alert in Europe and making other shows of strength and determination, taking steps to freeze Russian assets, etc.
Putin is already in this far, he is not going to back out, the only way forward for him is forward into Crimea and likely Ukraine.
Unmarked Russian units took the Crimia yesterday. Today, uniformed troops moved in. Russia has invaded the Russian speaking portion of Ukraine under the pretense of "protecting Russian people and interests." (Worth noting that the USSR deported undesirables from the Crimea and imported ethnic Russians)" Putin has a blank check from the rubber stamp wielding Parliament. Expect a move to secure more Eastern/Southern Ukrainian territory. Also, when we formally protest the US ambassador to Moscowwill be expelled.
Obama should:
1) put together a collation of NATO mme members and Eastern Block countries (Poland, Estonia, Yugoslavia, Serbia, etc) to condemn Russia. Many have done so on their own.
2) immediately yank Russia out of the G8 (where they don't belong anyway) and scratch Sochi as a meeting place.
3) freeze assets of the oligarchs
4) invite Georgia to take the next NATO step
5) help the Ukraine get an aid package before Russia moves to destroy the economy.
Putin knows he heads a paper tiger. GDP is flat even with massive oil and gas exports. The actual economy is in shambles. The free press, right to assembly, and many other basic rights are dead. He has to keep something distracting people or things will go bad.
Rebuilding the Soviet Block sure serves nicely. Russia still occupies parts of Georgia. Regularly bullies eastern Europe. And blocks significant action against n Korea and other asshats.
We don't need a shooting war, but we can't have Putin putting the wall back up.
Oh, also... in the 1990s we persuaded the Ukraine to give up their nukes in exchange for protection:
USA/NATO - hey, Ukraine, you don't need 1000 nuclear missiles.
Ukraine - ummm, yes we do. Russia is our neighbor and has crapped on us for centuries
USA - no, Russia's totally cool now. We will guarantee you territorial soveirgnty in exchange for your nukes.
Ukraine - done!
That's suddenly and issue...
I don't think we should get involved until it goes beyond Crimea. At that point, we need to go to war with Russia.
(http://www.thelookingspoon.com/tlsimages/blog/2012/reagan_headlock_obama_knock_it_off.jpg)
Quote from: davideinstein on March 02, 2014, 09:29:39 AM
I don't think we should get involved until it goes beyond Crimea. At that point, we need to go to war with Russia.
Wars in Russia have rarely gone well for the invading party. Probably easier/cheaper to persuade the Europeans to quit buying gas from them. I agree that some response is definitely required, but unilaterally starting a shooting war with Russia (who still have 3000 nukes pointed at us, mind) is not a good one.
It was my first thought, also. Bomb their Black Sea naval bases into rubble and they won't have much reason to stay. Easier said than done, though.
Why is a response warranted? Haven't we gotten involved in enough family feuds already?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 02, 2014, 04:24:05 PM
Why is a response warranted? Haven't we gotten involved in enough family feuds already?
We and the UK (Russia also, but..) guaranteed their security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) in exchange for sending the several hundred nukes they were left by the Soviets back to Russia. I don't take that to mean that we must start a shooting war immediately, but I do take it to mean that we should probably do something to at least annoy Putin if we'd like to have any chance of future disarmament.
Russia is a fading relic of the 20th century that Putin is franticly and futilely trying to restore to Soviet power and glory. In the real world Russia's population is decling having lost almost five million people over the last 25 years. Russia now has a smaller economy and fewer people than Brazil. It's economic power is most similar to Italy. Outside of aging nuclear weapons and some oil there is nothing to make Russia an important country anymore. Putin has made a huge blunder that will isolate Russia from the rest of the world for another generation and will probably destroy what small improvements they have made to the Russian economy. In winning Crimea he has lost the world. He's not going to take the rest of Ukraine, he's already seen what happened to his puppet there as recently as last week. The last thing he wants is another impoverished, restive and revolutionary minded region, especially one with an army of 200,000 that the west will be more than happy to arm to the teeth.
Taking Crimea from Ukraine will ensure that the Ukraine will never be a Russian ally ever again. Putin's dream of resurrecting The Soviet Union is dead. Crimea was an important location in the Soviet era being the home of a Russian fleet, but today the Black Sea is anything but a strategically important region and that fleet is a museum collection of rusting hulks that will never leave the Black Sea.
We certainly should not confront Putin militarily, we are already winning. Economic sanctions will shatter the Russian economy quite easily. Shutting off Gazprom will help the US and Oklahoma economy as an added nice additional benefit.
First thing I would do is send over Dennis Rodman.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 02, 2014, 04:24:05 PM
Why is a response warranted? Haven't we gotten involved in enough family feuds already?
Several reasons:
1) treaty duty
2) we threatened a response, and
3) when a despot invaded a democracy we historically respond.
If we do nothing - why would anyone choose close relations to the US over Russia or China? China can retake Taiwan. Russia can finish off Georgia and nibble on Poland. Failure to follow up on ones threats make them utterly worthless - which in the long run means more actual conflict.
We don't need a shooting war - but then again the troops invading Ukraine are unmarked troops. Russia says they aren't theirs. We can shoot them, right? Just terrorists.
All joking aside, no response destroys Americas diplomqcy and may be the end of American hegemony. When replaced but Russia and China, that's bad. Very bad.
Oh, and another point. Putin did this because he is pissed that the Ukraine won't be joining his version of the EU.
The combined GDP of the EU and the US is 33 trillion dollars. Russia's GDP is just over 2 trillion dollars. Ukraine's GDP is 176 billion dollars, which is only about 10% higher than Oklahoma's.
Putin is delusional.
Quote from: swake on March 02, 2014, 06:29:22 PM
Russia is a fading relic of the 20th century that Putin is franticly and futilely trying to restore to Soviet power and glory. In the real world Russia's population is decling having lost almost five million people over the last 25 years. Russia now has a smaller economy and fewer people than Brazil. It's economic power is most similar to Italy. Outside of aging nuclear weapons and some oil there is nothing to make Russia an important country anymore. Putin has made a huge blunder that will isolate Russia from the rest of the world for another generation and will probably destroy what small improvements they have made to the Russian economy. In winning Crimea he has lost the world. He's not going to take the rest of Ukraine, he's already seen what happened to his puppet there as recently as last week. The last thing he wants is another impoverished, restive and revolutionary minded region, especially one with an army of 200,000 that the west will be more than happy to arm to the teeth.
Taking Crimea from Ukraine will ensure that the Ukraine will never be a Russian ally ever again. Putin's dream of resurrecting The Soviet Union is dead. Crimea was an important location in the Soviet era being the home of a Russian fleet, but today the Black Sea is anything but a strategically important region and that fleet is a museum collection of rusting hulks that will never leave the Black Sea.
We certainly should not confront Putin militarily, we are already winning. Economic sanctions will shatter the Russian economy quite easily. Shutting off Gazprom will help the US and Oklahoma economy as an added nice additional benefit.
Thanks for always getting it right!! In all seriousness, this merits more widespread publication to the masses outside of this forum.
Quote from: swake on March 02, 2014, 06:29:22 PM
Russia is a fading relic of the 20th century that Putin is franticly and futilely trying to restore to Soviet power and glory. In the real world Russia's population is decling having lost almost five million people over the last 25 years. Russia now has a smaller economy and fewer people than Brazil. It's economic power is most similar to Italy. Outside of aging nuclear weapons and some oil there is nothing to make Russia an important country anymore. Putin has made a huge blunder that will isolate Russia from the rest of the world for another generation and will probably destroy what small improvements they have made to the Russian economy. In winning Crimea he has lost the world. He's not going to take the rest of Ukraine, he's already seen what happened to his puppet there as recently as last week. The last thing he wants is another impoverished, restive and revolutionary minded region, especially one with an army of 200,000 that the west will be more than happy to arm to the teeth.
Taking Crimea from Ukraine will ensure that the Ukraine will never be a Russian ally ever again. Putin's dream of resurrecting The Soviet Union is dead. Crimea was an important location in the Soviet era being the home of a Russian fleet, but today the Black Sea is anything but a strategically important region and that fleet is a museum collection of rusting hulks that will never leave the Black Sea.
We certainly should not confront Putin militarily, we are already winning. Economic sanctions will shatter the Russian economy quite easily. Shutting off Gazprom will help the US and Oklahoma economy as an added nice additional benefit.
I think your wrong. Without military force or the threat there of, he will take Crimea and possibly Ukraine. He won't care about the economic sanctions or what happens to his economy in the short run. He may "lose the world" for a while but still wields too many leverage points that we and Europe need him for in Europe and in other places in the world (Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc.). Over time he will wind his way back into getting his way. Also, not sure how you can "shut off Gazprom" without hurting Europe and by way of that then hurting our economy?
Quote from: TheArtist on March 02, 2014, 08:40:40 PM
I think your wrong. Without military force or the threat there of, he will take Crimea and possibly Ukraine. He won't care about the economic sanctions or what happens to his economy in the short run. He may "lose the world" for a while but still wields too many leverage points that we and Europe need him for in Europe and in other places in the world (Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc.). Over time he will wind his way back into getting his way. Also, not sure how you can "shut off Gazprom" without hurting Europe and by way of that then hurting our economy?
He's already taken Crimea, which is a small sympathetic and mostly Russian area and a historically Russian area. He's going to fight a ugly and bloody war against Ukraine? To what end? It's Afghanistan except much worse. Crimea has two million mostly Russian people, Ukraine has 45 million people 80% of which are NOT Russian. Ukraine has 200,000 standing troops and a million reserves that have just been called up. There may be political divisions in Ukraine, but nothing galvanizes a country like an invasion and that's what has happened.
We've canceled the G8 in Sochi, we are likely to kick Russia out of the G8. Gazprom does provide 30% of the natural gas to Western Europe but that's likely over anyway. The easiest way for Ukraine to hurt Russia is to stop the natural gas coming from Russia, the pipelines all go through Ukraine and we happen to have plenty of natural gas. As winter ends gas isn't as important anyway. Russia is irrelevant to North Korea, they are protected by China. Russia is the problem with Syria if we no longer care about keeping Russia happy in Syria our options are widened.
You have the idea that Russia is still some kind of Superpower, they are not. We spend almost $700 billion a year on defense, Russia spends $90 billion. That's about 45 days of spending for us. Russia only spends marginally more than the UK or France. Saudi Arabia spends $56 billion.
Military force by the U.S. and its allies should be the last option we exercise. However, since the situation is very fluid and Putin is acting a lot crazier than he is smart, any other possible options could quickly lose their viability.
Putin is jealous and embarrassed by the Ukraine's continuing global economic and social emergence. I also believe that he would like to create a situation that down spirals the world economy into exactly what his is doing. Of course an escalating military conflict will accomplish this feat for him. So I don't advocate just granting him this wish. Just like all of our other many enemies, Putin knows damn well he can't win. If we think we should go to war every time one of these fools attempts to goad us into something, we'd being fighting now in Algeria, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and wherever else I'm leaving out.
The vast majority of U.S. citizens (and certainly our allies) do not want to go to war. When weighing the outlandish costs disproportionately borne by the U.S. to fund the recent wars vs. what they have netted, it's simply too much for too little. Heaven forbid should it come down to this again, U.S. allies will need to drastically step up financially and manpower wise.
I'm not sure how to handle these tyrants and despots, but I haven't heard anyone else put forth anything that I'd flat out support. Given how long these recent conflicts have lasted, how long would one last with Russia - 15 yrs. or more? My conception of war is a lot different than that of most others. It'd be my very last option. But if I'm running the show and they f'd with me and I had no other option, then I'm taking them out in 48 hours! For all of those folks out there that believe that the U.S. is soft and needs to make an example of one of its enemies, this is really the only way to deliver that message. Engaging in a 13 year mess in the rubble known as Afghanistan sure doesn't.
While I do think shutting off Gazprom could cause some pain in Europe, the pain will be much more severe for Russia. They'll need us and the rest of Europe well before we'd need them. Additionally, they have other pressure points that economic sanctions would squeeze. Remember when the curtain was pulled exposing that great big room, it was full of nothing but junk (and still is).
Now we know Obama administration is getting serious. They are dragging W into the Ukraine mess.
https://twitter.com/CrowleyTIME/status/440242828812505088
Quote from: swake on March 02, 2014, 10:22:37 PM
He's already taken Crimea, which is a small sympathetic and mostly Russian area and a historically Russian area. He's going to fight a ugly and bloody war against Ukraine? To what end? It's Afghanistan except much worse. Crimea has two million mostly Russian people, Ukraine has 45 million people 80% of which are NOT Russian. Ukraine has 200,000 standing troops and a million reserves that have just been called up. There may be political divisions in Ukraine, but nothing galvanizes a country like an invasion and that's what has happened.
We've canceled the G8 in Sochi, we are likely to kick Russia out of the G8. Gazprom does provide 30% of the natural gas to Western Europe but that's likely over anyway. The easiest way for Ukraine to hurt Russia is to stop the natural gas coming from Russia, the pipelines all go through Ukraine and we happen to have plenty of natural gas. As winter ends gas isn't as important anyway. Russia is irrelevant to North Korea, they are protected by China. Russia is the problem with Syria if we no longer care about keeping Russia happy in Syria our options are widened.
You have the idea that Russia is still some kind of Superpower, they are not. We spend almost $700 billion a year on defense, Russia spends $90 billion. That's about 45 days of spending for us. Russia only spends marginally more than the UK or France. Saudi Arabia spends $56 billion.
I don't think they are a superpower. This isn't about what I think, its about how Putin and the Russians think. They are bullies that think they are big and strong, and that being tough and swaggering around is the "manly" thing to do, and that we in the west are Jealous of their natural resources and will do whatever we can to take them from them, etc. They are a bunch of nut cases in my book, but you keep acting like they are going to look at things as we might, and are not looking at this from their strange, freakish psychological/historical/religious viewpoints.
Threw them out of the G-8? OMG I can see them trembling lol. They don't care.
This was well calculated by Putin. The Transcarpathian region, the Dnieper-Donets, and Crimean regions of the Ukraine are heavy natural gas producers, and the country as a whole has some of the most developed, and oldest, web of transport pipelines in Europe, designed to distribute fuels to and from the multitude of Eastern European states.
Sure, Putin would like to see the re-birth of the old Soviet Union, however I think he knows that is unrealistic, but insuring economic stability is not unrealistic, and to do that he needs to fuel the machine. Russia continues without falter to be our greatest geo-political foe, because they continue to lack economic stability.
Putin faces no consequences for this action, and he knows it. Certainly not from the Unites States. He is going to get bolder. His next move will be to purchase oil from Iran. He needs the Iranian oil deal, but sanctions have been preventing that. Condemnation from the US and EU would mean a possible 500K barrels of oil a day from Iran, and Iran will be free to import other resources through Russia. It's win-win. He has no need of us or the G8, as long as he has energy and a powerful military.
Putin was given more flexibility, and he simply took it. When a hungry bear tries to eat you, you cannot blame the bear.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 03, 2014, 08:13:30 AM
This was well calculated by Putin. The Transcarpathian region, the Dnieper-Donets, and Crimean regions of the Ukraine are heavy natural gas producers, and the country as a whole has some of the most developed, and oldest, web of transport pipelines in Europe, designed to distribute fuels to and from the multitude of Eastern European states.
Sure, Putin would like to see the re-birth of the old Soviet Union, however I think he knows that is unrealistic, but insuring economic stability is not unrealistic, and to do that he needs to fuel the machine. Russia continues without falter to be our greatest geo-political foe, because they continue to lack economic stability.
Putin faces no consequences for this action, and he knows it. Certainly not from the Unites States. He is going to get bolder. His next move will be to purchase oil from Iran. He needs the Iranian oil deal, but sanctions have been preventing that. Condemnation from the US and EU would mean a possible 500K barrels of oil a day from Iran, and Iran will be free to import other resources through Russia. It's win-win. He has no need of us or the G8, as long as he has energy and a powerful military.
Putin was given more flexibility, and he simply took it. When a hungry bear tries to eat you, you cannot blame the bear.
You are aware that Russia is the world's largest oil producer, right? He doesn't need Iranian oil, he needs trade with Iran. Russia would just resale any oil they get from Iran. What good would another 500k barrels of oil do for Russia if they are embargoed?
This wasn't well calculated, this was stupid. Putin has lost Ukraine forever, just like he did with Georgia. Moldova and Georgia are now fast tracked on associations with the EU. I will expect that will happen with Georgia as well and that when the current crisis is over all three states will be will soon be asking for NATO membership. Very likely almost every former Soviet state not named Belarus is going to be asking to join. If that's not losing for Putin, what is?
As for a strong military, let's go over this again, the US spends almost $700 billion a year on defense, the combined total for NATO is almost a trillion dollars a year. Russia spends $90 billion. That's a lot compared to Ukraine, but compared to a future NATO allied Ukraine it's not. This is what he is afraid of, and why in invading Crimea he has already lost.
Hitler has demanded that the Czech Republic surrender the Sudetenland, in the interest of the German speaking people there and to protect German interests.
My bad, what I meant to say is that Putin has demanded Ukranian forces in their bases within the Ukrainian province of Crimia surrender within 11 hours or be destroyed.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBREA221AI20140303?irpc=932
Message: "voluntarily" join the new Soviet or be forced to join.
This cannot stand. It is a blatant violation of international law, triggers a US treaty obligation, and is far too close to history to let it repeat itself.
Quote from: swake on March 03, 2014, 11:20:05 AM
You are aware that Russia is the world's largest oil producer, right? He doesn't need Iranian oil, he needs trade with Iran. Russia would just resale any oil they get from Iran. What good would another 500k barrels of oil do for Russia if they are embargoed?
He needs money, and that is all oil, gas and the means of transportation are.
. . .and they will not be embargoed. Neither the US or the EU has the guts for anything that would result in out-n-out war.
He sized us up, and did so quite easily.
Crimia river, what is Putin's end game here? There will be US and EU response and none of them will help Putin to save face and step down.
Quote from: carltonplace on March 03, 2014, 01:45:08 PM
Crimia river, what is Putin's end game here? There will be US and EU response and none of them will help Putin to save face and step down.
His end game seems to be to take what part of Ukraine he can as payback for Ukraine turning to the west. He's throwing a temper tantrum. He was already pissed that he got snubbed over the Olympics. Angela Merkel thinks he's unhinged. She may be right.
Our goal has to be to keep Putin from going any further and to try to get Crimea back. Getting Crimea back seems unlikely at this point, but we do need to try.
I don't consider myself an isolationist but I feel a tad war weary.
I wonder if the costs of getting militarily involved is wise.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 03, 2014, 01:13:20 PM
Neither the US or the EU has the guts for anything that would result in out-n-out war.
He sized us up, and did so quite easily.
It's in absolutely no one's best interest to engage in an all out-in-out war. Putin's also been sized up. Doesn't have a pot to pi$$ in or a window to throw it out of and the world knows it!
Quote from: Townsend on March 03, 2014, 02:20:27 PM
I wonder if the costs of getting militarily involved is wise.
Given how much of their forex reserves they have spent today propping up the ruble, and that's after bumping interest rates 2%, I don't think military intervention will be necessary. Just gotta give him a way to save face and he'll GTFO. Unless the rumor that the UK is going to decline to go along with sanctions is true, anyway. If they and the rest of the EU Chamberlain it up, all bets are off.
There is one good thing to come of it, though. This crisis has made explicitly clear who among the pundits is stuck in the Cold War and who has moved on.
50% of Russia's federal budget comes from oil and gas sales. We can certainly hurt them badly there. Also cut off western banking and travel visas. We have no need to get into a war.
Russia is now backed by China.
Russia is moving long range artillery into Ukraine today (CNN thinks they are tanks :D )
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh0Bx6LCcAA6yBb.png)
2S1 Gvozdikas
How long do you think it will take before President Obama claims Russia is "on the wrong side of history" and shakes his finger?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 03, 2014, 03:52:56 PM
Russia is now backed by China.
Russia is moving long range artillery into Ukraine today (CNN thinks they are tanks :D )
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh0Bx6LCcAA6yBb.png)
2S1 Gvozdikas
These Soviet era armored vehicles look older and less sophisticated than the one's used in their invasion of Hungary back in 1956.
Are those Gvozdika-type mobile howitzers? Best I could do on short notice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S1_Gvozdika
Update: Just now saw that they guns were identified on the pic. didn't consciously see that last time. It's amazing what I can remember when somebody already gives me the answer...
Quote from: Gaspar on March 03, 2014, 03:52:56 PM
Russia is now backed by China.
Russia is moving long range artillery into Ukraine today (CNN thinks they are tanks :D )
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh0Bx6LCcAA6yBb.png)
2S1 Gvozdikas
How long do you think it will take before President Obama claims Russia is "on the wrong side of history" and shakes his finger?
So should we scramble jets and light up these 40 year old relics? Would that be better?
We are really getting serious now. We just canceled the official delegation to the Sochi paralympics.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/sochi/2014/03/03/united-states-official-delegation-sochi-paralympics/5976875/
Welcome back Carter...
FWIW, those mobile artillery pieces were designed in the 60s and production ceased with the fall of the Soviet Union. Ironically, Russia has ~600 of them, while the Ukraine has nearly 650. So if those things win wars, Ukraine has this in the bank.
I checked with Moscow Molly, and she said that is Mobile Peace Artillery, not mobile artillery pieces. We just had it mixed up with out crazy talk. So nothing to see here people. Move along. The actual party line from Russia is that the Russian invasion is to "preserver democracy", provide stability, save the people of the Ukraine, and protect Russian speaking Ukrainians. "We are from the Red Army, and we are here to help" said no one ever. Seriously, Russia invading Ukraine to protect civil rights (while censoring the internet and shutting down voices of contention) would be like Obama confiscating firearms to protect the second amendment. It's just a dumb excuse. see, for example, the Russian genocide in the Ukraine between WWI and WWII, during WWII, and after WWII. Well, pretty much anytime Russia controlled the Ukraine looking at it historically.
Russia reportedly has 16k troops in the Crimea, has now occupied the port, and taken the border crossings after Ukrainian boarder patrol had the nerve to try and stop unmarked masked gunmen from crossing the boarder on military equipment. BUT - according to Russia, all this is being done in accordance with the treaty governing Russian troops in the Crimea. If you believe Russia had ~10k troops massed on the Ukraine's, had ships in position, and special forces on the ground ahead of all these moves because it wants to "reserve democracy," I have a huge reserve of bit coins I can email to you in exchange for cash.
QuoteInsert Quote
I don't consider myself an isolationist but I feel a tad war weary.
I wonder if the costs of getting militarily involved is wise.
Said everyone when Germany occupied the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in order to protect the German speaking civilians as well as their interests.
Seriously, Russia has occupied South Ossetia and Obkhazia, provinces of Georgia, for five years. A country that was nearly a NATO member before Russia invaded them. Obkhazia is recognized by the UN and the US as part of Georgia, but, backed by Russia, a minority group has been steadily expelling anyone not them and not Russian. Backed by Russia (which issues Russian passports in the province), the province is no longer government by Georgia. It lies a few miles from Sochi - but I never heard about a "disputed territory" a few miles from the Olympics.
There are native Russian speakers in nearly all of the post-soviet empire. Funny thing when you kill or deport the native population and/or dictate a language as THE language - the mandated language tends to stick around for a while (ask the next Native American you meet to speak their language). Putin has moved to take about a fifth of Georgia and a chunk of the Ukraine in a period of 5 years. What's next?
LATVIA has 55% Russian speakers
MOLDOVA, ESTONIA and ARMENIA each have over 35%
LITHUANIA has 20%
Can Putin protect their democracy too?
History has taught us that the more you let a tyrant get away with, the more they will take. Putin is a tyrant. He has gotten away with too much already and is getting more and more bold.
Ruin the Russian economy. Destroy the oligarchs. Russia cannot embargo their oil or they go broke in a month. They don't have the military to start a real shooting war and nuclear war is insane. The USA spends more in 6 weeks on military than the Russians spend all year.
Their economy dropped 12% today. It will drop more tomorrow. Their economy is a shill waiting to die. It's time to choke the hell out of it until Putin backs down, then paint him as weak and prop up his opposition. CIA money to all groups opposing Putin, make his life hell. If Russians are good at anything, its ruining their own country.
/this is why you don't do foreign policy while angry
Quote from: Townsend on March 03, 2014, 02:20:27 PM
I don't consider myself an isolationist but I feel a tad war weary.
I wonder if the costs of getting militarily involved is wise.
I am with T on this. Especially since we refused to help the Iran opposition when it was going through democracy pains a few years ago. My suggestion, let's keep this between government leaders: Vitali "Dr. Ironfist" Klitschko v. Vlad "Bareback" Putin. Hope Putin tries to get close to Vitali and try his judo...
This isn't internal politics in a country with whom we have no diplomatic relations. This is Tsarist Russia invading a country that has openly stated they want to be a NATO ally.
I don't get it.
If we do nothing here, then what is the line? Is there one?
Russia, China and the USA are vying for allies. Why would anyone choose the USA and the west if you can literally be invaded and we don't live up to treaties? Go join Cuba, Venezuela, north Korea, Iran and Syria. They have allies that will actually support them (and their violations of human rights).
Hey China, go take Taiwan.
Quote from: swake on March 03, 2014, 02:41:05 PM
50% of Russia's federal budget comes from oil and gas sales. We can certainly hurt them badly there. Also cut off western banking and travel visas. We have no need to get into a war.
Your still thinking like a westerner with western values and applying those values and thoughts to people who do not think like you.
He will love that as they ramp up the propaganda machine to point out to the Russians how bad the West is for hurting the people of Russia like this when all they were trying to do was protect other Russians in Ukrane. They will rally behind him and those that don't will be struck down. It won't be Putin hurting the Russian economy, it will be the West. And they will hate us for it. Bunch of angry hurting bullies, thumping their chests and pointing at us for the cause of their troubles.
If the West had shown and mobilized major force, that could have given Putin a way to back out. We wouldn't have had to use it either way. But it could have given him a way out. Almost as much as he has built his own mess, he is a product of circumstances as well. Kind of "It takes two to tango." They think in "macho tough" terms. And it doesn't matter if you really are stronger than him, if the bully puffs himself up and makes you back down, he wins the day and takes the prize.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 03, 2014, 09:45:18 PM
Your still thinking like a westerner with western values and applying those values and thoughts to people who do not think like you.
He will love that as they ramp up the propaganda machine to point out to the Russians how bad the West is for hurting the people of Russia like this when all they were trying to do was protect other Russians in Ukrane. They will rally behind him and those that don't will be struck down. It won't be Putin hurting the Russian economy, it will be the West. And they will hate us for it. Bunch of angry hurting bullies, thumping their chests and pointing at us for the cause of their troubles.
If the West had shown and mobilized major force, that could have given Putin a way to back out. We wouldn't have had to use it either way. But it could have given him a way out. Almost as much as he has built his own mess, he is a product of circumstances as well. Kind of "It takes two to tango." They think in "macho tough" terms. And it doesn't matter if you really are stronger than him, if the bully puffs himself up and makes you back down, he wins the day and takes the prize.
Quit thinking in cold war terms.
You misunderstand the Russian state and economy. It's basically like a mafia run country. You don't have to hurt the population, Russian leadership doesn't care about those sheep anyway. You have to hurt the oligarchs, the ruling class. And that you can do pretty quickly. Cut off western banking, cut the flow of money into the country and don't allow them into the west.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 03, 2014, 09:45:18 PM
They will rally behind him and those that don't will be struck down. It won't be Putin hurting the Russian economy, it will be the West. And they will hate us for it. Bunch of angry hurting bullies, thumping their chests and pointing at us for the cause of their troubles.
Given the fact that a country that size is 50% dependent on oil and gas, it won't take long before they are seriously hurting without the revenue. It's just like knocking the knees from under a wobbly 500 lb giant. He's going down pretty fast.
He can use whatever propaganda he chooses because long term it won't be effective. The Russian people will not want to hear who is to blame, they'll be pi$$ed at him for allowing the economy to falter when he could have chosen otherwise. The Russian standard of living albeit not great by any Western measures is certainly better than it was throughout the Cold War when it was totally all about sacrifice for the state. The Russian citizens today will not be comfortable reverting back to the abject poverty conditions that defined their existence only a generation or two ago (especially those who weren't old enough to have suffered through the worst of those times). So it won't be a surprise if Putin is ultimately unsuccessful in maintaining unity and widespread support among his own citizens throughout the process.
This is not yours and my daddy's Cold War anymore. The new weapons of choice are much more destructive than the conventional, and guess what, they need not be deployed on a battlefield.
I do not get you CF and other interventionalists. We had the authority of the UN/international law to go after Saddam in 2003. We had massive support in the international community, we were going after a guy that harassed our planes in the no fly zone, gassed his own people, was a state sponsor of terror, etc. Were you folks sitting on your high horses about intervening then? How about today?
I would like to think no one on this board is a bigger supporter of Ukraine me. I am just not ready to send our soldiers to fight that war yet. I also do not support the idea of spending millions of dollars on a bluff.
A little more from our leader:
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1798123_690246591035473_1166867910_n.jpg)
So is this part of the US flexibility program?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9168669/Barack-Obama-defends-Dmitry-Medvedev-microphone-gaffe.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9168669/Barack-Obama-defends-Dmitry-Medvedev-microphone-gaffe.html)
We told Medvedev that we would be more flexible after the election, and Medvedev said he would relay it to Vlad.
Obama: ???
Putin: Consistant
No one knows what our foreign policy is. Are we interventionist? Are we participants in international treaty and law?
People typically know what to expect from a leader, because he/she typically has some consiatancy in action. If that is the case, the world should expect what they saw in Syria.
Swake and Rookie Okie.....new world thinking. You manipulate your enemies by controlling the flow of commodities, money and fuel. War is useless in a technological, digital age.
Artist, Gas and Guido.....old world thinking. Reality is what you make it. Criticism, public relations, and team are all that matters. Chauvinism rules, war inevitable. Irony. (Artist, bullying a macho bully will make him back down and give us credibility? Ever been to country bars much?)
CF......passion, honor and intelligence. Return to Kennedy era values and thinking. Man to man. Attractive.
I have to go with Putin having made a blunder that in time will destroy him and/or his country. All war is economic in its origins. It then follows that economics is the best preventative/prescription for war.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 07:59:53 AM
Swake and Rookie Okie.....new world thinking. You manipulate your enemies by controlling the flow of commodities, money and fuel. War is useless in a technological, digital age.
Artist, Gas and Guido.....old world thinking. Reality is what you make it. Criticism, public relations, and team are all that matters. Chauvinism rules, war inevitable. Irony. (Artist, bullying a macho bully will make him back down and give us credibility? Ever been to country bars much?)
CF......passion, honor and intelligence. Return to Kennedy era values and thinking. Man to man. Attractive.
I have to go with Putin having made a blunder that in time will destroy him and/or his country. All war is economic in its origins. It then follows that economics is the best preventative/prescription for war.
I don't think we should get involved. I just think we should make that intension clear. Our greatest weapon is the privilege of trading with us. When backed up by an impenetrable and fearsome defense, that is all we should need. Attack us, and die, attack our friends and die economically. Learn to survive peacefully with us or without us, but don't provoke us.
Unfortunately fence-sitting hurt us. Putin has the best hand currently because he knows Obama is going to waver like a reed, and confront this with rhetoric instead of action. That hurts because our markets will pay the price, and our trading partners will become uneasy as to which side they feel safer dealing with.
China is giggling.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on March 03, 2014, 10:26:04 PM
He can use whatever propaganda he chooses because long term it won't be effective.
That's always been the USSR/Russia's strongest weapon. Only after the cold war was over did we finally realize how much of the USSR's armament was bluff and bluster. Technologically, they are light years behind the U.S.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 08:21:50 AM
I don't think we should get involved. I just think we should make that intension clear. Our greatest weapon is the privilege of trading with us. When backed up by an impenetrable and fearsome defense, that is all we should need. Attack us, and die, attack our friends and die economically. Learn to survive peacefully with us or without us, but don't provoke us.
Unfortunately fence-sitting hurt us. Putin has the best hand currently because he knows Obama is going to waver like a reed, and confront this with rhetoric instead of action. That hurts because our markets will pay the price, and our trading partners will become uneasy as to which side they feel safer dealing with.
China is giggling.
" I don't think we should get involved" and "fence sitting hurt us" and "rhetoric instead of action" don't seem to be compatible statements. Did I miss something here?
This is worth noting. It is our history being played out in Europe right now. Surprises me that you all haven't made the connection. Russia is doing what we did to acquire Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona. On the pretext that our country was at risk and our countrymen were being attacked by hostile forces, we intervened to protect our interests and our people using "remember the Alamo!" to rally support. I know the circumstances are not an exact match but our behavior allowed us to expand our economic and defensive base. That was the real reason American forces intervened. Had there been instantaneous press, internet and Spanish ships in the Gulf we may never have pulled it off. It was done before most of the world knew what was happening.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 08:30:44 AM
" I don't think we should get involved" and "fence sitting hurt us" and "rhetoric instead of action" don't seem to be compatible statements. Did I miss something here?
Yes you did.
We should either tell the world that WE WILL NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN YOUR PETTY WARS UNLESS THEY POSE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, or we tell them STOP IT OR WE WILL BLOW YOU UP.
Either way, we make it clear that bad actors and their allies will lose the ability to trade with the US. Period!
However the use of the word "Period!" may not play play well with this president.
The body language in this room is priceless.
(https://o.twimg.com/1/proxy.jpg?t=FQQVBhg_aHR0cDovL2Zhcm00LnN0YXRpY2ZsaWNrci5jb20vMzc4NC8xMjkxNzg2MTQwM18xNTlmZjIyZDM4X3ouanBnFAIWABIA&s=e5z4ZwKCq5FItPl7VfMQJU9fykintTLC-K5y7PGD3ZE)
"Ok, now everyone look at the president and pretend he knows what he's doing. Joe, finger out of your nose."
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 08:41:13 AM
...Russia is doing what we did to acquire Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona... ...we intervened to protect our interests and our people using "remember the Alamo!" to rally support...
I get your post and agree with your general sentiment, but my Texan wife's family as well as my kids who were both born in TX, would probably take umbrage at including TX in with the other states. Texas won it's independence from Mexico own it's own. There was no support from the US military at the time. "Remember the Alamo!", and "Remember Goliad!" were Texian battle cries, not US. It then became an independent country for a while before aligning with and be annexed by the US. (Which did start another war, this time between the US and Mexico, but Texas was already independent by then.)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 08:57:17 AM
Yes you did.
We should either tell the world that WE WILL NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN YOUR PETTY WARS UNLESS THEY POSE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, or we tell them STOP IT OR WE WILL BLOW YOU UP.
Either way, we make it clear that bad actors and their allies will lose the ability to trade with the US. Period!
However the use of the word "Period!" may not play play well with this president.
The body language in this room is priceless.
(https://o.twimg.com/1/proxy.jpg?t=FQQVBhg_aHR0cDovL2Zhcm00LnN0YXRpY2ZsaWNrci5jb20vMzc4NC8xMjkxNzg2MTQwM18xNTlmZjIyZDM4X3ouanBnFAIWABIA&s=e5z4ZwKCq5FItPl7VfMQJU9fykintTLC-K5y7PGD3ZE)
"Ok, now everyone look at the president and pretend he knows what he's doing. Joe, finger out of your nose."
No, I didn't. Your self constructed paradigm limits your vision. Wars are economic. Using economics to punish is like using tanks to acquire land. You don't see that refusing trade with us and our allies is a warlike action similar in nature to our refusing to trade with Japan before WWII, yet selling to their perceived enemies. The Japanese considered that "becoming involved". They were correct in that assessment and it led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Of course you disguise your limitation by using captioning pics and dismissing our leadership. Consistent behavior.
Quote from: rebound on March 04, 2014, 09:14:45 AM
I get your post and agree with your general sentiment, but my Texan wife's family as well as my kids who were both born in TX, would probably take umbrage at including TX in with the other states. Texas won it's independence from Mexico own it's own. There was no support from the US military at the time. "Remember the Alamo!", and "Remember Goliad!" were Texian battle cries, not US. It then became an independent country for a while before aligning with and be annexed by the US. (Which did start another war, this time between the US and Mexico, but Texas was already independent by then.)
Texans take umbrage at everything outside of Texas! My recounting of that history is from memory, though there was no overt support from the US military at the time, there were certainly American patriots fighting there and behind the scenes support. Some friends tell me Texas never really became a state in fact since its entry was not ratified by the necessary number of states. Any validity to that?
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 10:08:55 AM
No, I didn't. Your self constructed paradigm limits your vision. Wars are economic. Using economics to punish is like using tanks to acquire land. You don't see that refusing trade with us and our allies is a warlike action similar in nature to our refusing to trade with Japan before WWII, yet selling to their perceived enemies. The Japanese considered that "becoming involved". They were correct in that assessment and it led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Of course you disguise your limitation by using captioning pics and dismissing our leadership. Consistent behavior.
So if our country decides not to do business with someone because we don't like the way they conduct themselves, that is an act of war? Really? Seriously?
Trade with the US is a carrot, not a stick. It only becomes a stick when other countries allow themselves to become dependent through their own economic mismanagement. We are not responsible for Russia's sucky economy or corrupt government.
We are G D free as individuals and as a country to do business with whomever the hell we please. Trade is mutual exchange and we have the right extend or revoke it based on the actions of our trade partners. We are not obligated to trade under penalty of war.
It seems that you have adopted a global paradigm that has little basis in reality.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 10:14:27 AM
Texans take umbrage at everything outside of Texas! My recounting of that history is from memory, though there was no overt support from the US military at the time, there were certainly American patriots fighting there and behind the scenes support. Some friends tell me Texas never really became a state in fact since its entry was not ratified by the necessary number of states. Any validity to that?
Oh man, do they ever! And I've lived with it for almost 20 years now. :)
Texans are always looking for ways to claim that either (a) they were never really made a state and are therefor still technically a separate nation, or (b) that the terms of their annexation allow them to secede at their will. Neither of those claims is true. Regarding annexation, it was a very tumultuous time in the US, and there were some interesting compromises, etc, involved with the TX annexation. The controversy regarding the necessary number of states is related to a 2/3 versus simple-majority vote criteria. It's a long and convoluted story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation), but in the end TX was in fact legally annexed. (Note, this same process was basically used for Hawaii as well, and if we want to discuss unfair and/or unjust annexation of lands, Hawaii is a textbook case. The US actually helped overthrow a sitting ruler in order to secure the state.) The second point, about being able to secede, is also invalid but has a twist. While they can't secede, there is some language in one of the documents that would allow TX to split into multiple smaller states should they choose. I can't see that happening now, as it would diminish their power, but it would (as I understand it) be legal.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 10:31:57 AM
So if our country decides not to do business with someone because we don't like the way they conduct themselves, that is an act of war? Really? Seriously?
Trade with the US is a carrot, not a stick. It only becomes a stick when other countries allow themselves to become dependent through their own economic mismanagement. We are not responsible for Russia's sucky economy or corrupt government.
We are G D free as individuals and as a country to do business with whomever the hell we please. Trade is mutual exchange and we have the right extend or revoke it based on the actions of our trade partners. We are not obligated to trade under penalty of war.
It seems that you have adopted a global paradigm that has little basis in reality.
Context is hard for you. We do business with anyone we want. True enough. When we use economics to punish or reward countries involved in a possible war scenario then we are taking sides and becoming involved.
I laid out my summary of the viewpoints espoused on here so far. You are staying consistent with your antiquated view of the world. History should give you some pause to question those views but you'll likely disregard what isn't within your paradigm. Its infuriating when your strongly held political convictions conflict with real life events. The immediate response is everyone else must be crazy. I don't hold on to mine too strongly lest they hold me back in dealing with reality.
Quote from: rebound on March 04, 2014, 10:41:18 AM
Oh man, do they ever! And I've lived with it for almost 20 years now. :)
Texans are always looking for ways to claim that either (a) they were never really made a state and are therefor still technically a separate nation, or (b) that the terms of their annexation allow them to secede at their will. Neither of those claims is true. Regarding annexation, it was a very tumultuous time in the US, and there were some interesting compromises, etc, involved with the TX annexation. The controversy regarding the necessary number of states is related to a 2/3 versus simple-majority vote criteria. It's a long and convoluted story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation), but in the end TX was in fact legally annexed. (Note, this same process was basically used for Hawaii as well, and if we want to discuss unfair and/or unjust annexation of lands, Hawaii is a textbook case. The US actually helped overthrow a sitting ruler in order to secure the state.) The second point, about being able to secede, is also invalid but has a twist. While they can't secede, there is some language in one of the documents that would allow TX to split into multiple smaller states should they choose. I can't see that happening now, as it would diminish their power, but it would (as I understand it) be legal.
Thanks. Very interesting. How cool would it be to separate into 5 states, create a loosely bonded confederacy, add 8 more senators from the area and increase influence over the whole country? Lots of states would allege unfair treatment if they weren't allowed the same. Divisive.
Of course Mexico may not like that sort of anti-independent attitude and cut off trade with the other states while offering aid to the new states.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 10:14:27 AM
Texans take umbrage at everything outside of Texas! My recounting of that history is from memory, ...
You (and I) are old but not that old.
;D
Quote from: Gaspar on March 03, 2014, 03:52:56 PM
Russia is now backed by China.
Russia is moving long range artillery into Ukraine today (CNN thinks they are tanks :D )
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh0Bx6LCcAA6yBb.png)
2S1 Gvozdikas
How long do you think it will take before President Obama claims Russia is "on the wrong side of history" and shakes his finger?
Well, there it is, about 30 minutes ago at a presser at Powell Elementary School in DC. When taking questions about the Ukraine, He actually said "We stand on the side of history."
(http://cdn1.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/optics/5361311-1-eng-US/Optics_large.png)
Huh? No one knows what that means. Are we somehow outside of the time-space continuum?
If you listen closely, you can hear laughing all the way from the Kremlin.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 12:07:04 PM
Well, there it is, about 30 minutes ago at a presser at Powell Elementary School in DC. When taking questions about the Ukraine, He actually said "We stand on the side of history."
Huh? No one knows what that means. Are we somehow outside of the time-space continuum?
Probably means he's stalling until one of the Clintons can intervene on his behalf.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 04, 2014, 12:10:12 PM
Probably means he's stalling until one of the Clintons can intervene on his behalf.
But we walk into the future. . .and we sit with the now. **tears**
Hope & Change! Hope & Change!
(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VG735_obama1_G_20121107022710.jpg)
Warning, bullshit clouds forming over the DC area.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 12:07:04 PM
Well, there it is, about 30 minutes ago at a presser at Powell Elementary School in DC. When taking questions about the Ukraine, He actually said "We stand on the side of history."
Huh? No one knows what that means. Are we somehow outside of the time-space continuum?
If we means you. And maybe Conan. :)
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 04, 2014, 11:56:18 AM
You (and I) are old but not that old.
;D
Ha! Good catch. I must have been channeling my great grandfather.
Guido:
I was fine with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I Supported in on the "6 year old" doctrine. You can only threaten a 6 year old with a punishment so many times before you have to go through with it . We had to go through with it regarding Saddam. Now - I wish we hadn't over hyped our reason and wish we had a better political plan (disbanding the army and banning anyone with experience from government jobs turned out very bad). But the idea I was fine with (clearly I didn't know ahead of time that we had no real political plan).
Isolationism DOES NOT WORK. See WWI. See also WWII. When the major powers ignore situations that are boiling over very bad things happen. We worked very hard to be THE world power - socially, economically, politically, and militarily we simply dominate. Not even close.
That position means we have to lead or get out of the way. Getting out of the way means, simply, that we are not a reliable ally and Putin, China, N Korea can do as they please. The equation on that goes very bad.
Fine, just the Crimea. OK, and Eastern Ukraine. And parts of Georgia. Oh, and... never get involved?
I'm not crying for a shooting war. There are better ways. Prop up Ukraine, Poland and Georgia. Destroy Russian Oligarchs.
Crash oil prices by releasing 100,000,000 from the reserve. Russia is bankrupt in a month.
http://jalopnik.com/the-genius-way-the-us-could-hurt-russia-and-help-you-at-1535434366
No military response at this point, sure. But no response to an invasion of a potential NATO ally?
And yes, to a vague extent the USA did a similar thing to Mexico in the 1850s. And Naples did it to Florence in the 1700s. And England to Scotland. The Tsars regularily messed with Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland, etc. Politics 100+ years ago was very different.
I'm trying to drag Vlad into the late 20th century.
Russia just test-fired an ICBM.
(http://logicum.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/77b72_russianicbm.jpg)
Now that's some posturing!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/russia-test-fires-intercontinental-balli-idUKL6N0M14IW20140304
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine/
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 02:15:42 PM
Russia just test-fired an ICBM.
(http://logicum.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/77b72_russianicbm.jpg)
Now that's some posturing!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/russia-test-fires-intercontinental-balli-idUKL6N0M14IW20140304
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine/
That's not a missile, it's their new humanitarian aid supply delivery system. It will fly overhead and deliver supplies to the deprived Russians, like toilet paper and vodka. You know, like the Berlin airlift.
I also found it funny, when Putin said they are not Russian Troops. All of the stuff they have can be purchased at stores throughout the country as leftover surplus goods.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 04, 2014, 02:12:25 PM
Isolationism DOES NOT WORK. See WWI. See also WWII. When the major powers ignore situations that are boiling over very bad things happen. We worked very hard to be THE world power - socially, economically, politically, and militarily we simply dominate. Not even close.
That position means we have to lead or get out of the way. Getting out of the way means, simply, that we are not a reliable ally and Putin, China, N Korea can do as they please. The equation on that goes very bad.
Fine, just the Crimea. OK, and Eastern Ukraine. And parts of Georgia. Oh, and... never get involved?
I'm not crying for a shooting war. There are better ways. Prop up Ukraine, Poland and Georgia. Destroy Russian Oligarchs.
Crash oil prices by releasing 100,000,000 from the reserve. Russia is bankrupt in a month.
http://jalopnik.com/the-genius-way-the-us-could-hurt-russia-and-help-you-at-1535434366
No military response at this point, sure. But no response to an invasion of a potential NATO ally?
And yes, to a vague extent the USA did a similar thing to Mexico in the 1850s. And Naples did it to Florence in the 1700s. And England to Scotland. The Tsars regularily messed with Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland, etc. Politics 100+ years ago was very different.
I'm trying to drag Vlad into the late 20th century.
You were fine up to this point. Politics hasn't changed. Only the setting and the players. That was my point. The Borgias did it. The pineapple businessmen in Hawaii did it. Germany did it. Korea did it. Russia did it and is doing it again. We have and will do it if our people or interests are being challenged.
We are already involved. Kerry has promised huge amounts of aid to the Ukraine. I'm sure our missiles and NATO allies are on alert. Economic threats have been made. We are in contact with all parties and what is said in the press and on forums is not likely what is being said behind the scenes. What else would you do? Anyone?
You crash the market and bankrupt mafia owned businesses and they will respond with whatever power they have left. And that is nuclear, troops and tanks. Like the Untouchables, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Then a military response is certain. Game over. Species endangered. Only Gas would find humor in Russian ICBM's being test fired.
Sometimes, standing back and taking a deep breath is critical to good decision making. Putin has made his play. If he is in fact in charge he may have played a bad hand. If its the crazies and the military then few solutions are available. China is as key as our allies.
It was a planned test firing. It was not a surprise test.
QuoteA Pentagon official told CBS News that the U.S. detected the launch of the Russian ICBM near the border of Russia and Kazakhstan. Notifications were made ahead of time in accordance with normal procedures. The official said the launch is viewed as non-threatening and is not connected to what is going on in Crimea.
It is unclear exactly what kind of ICBM was launched and how long ago the U.S. was notified about the test.
The state-run news agency RIA cited Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Yegorov as saying the Strategic Rocket Forces launched an RS-12M Topol missile from the southerly Astrakhan region near the Caspian Sea and the dummy warhead hit its target at a proving ground in Kazakhstan.
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden called it a "routine test launch of an ICBM."
"As required under the New START Treaty, Russia provided advance notification of this launch to the United States," Hayden said. "Such advance notifications are intended to provide transparency, confidence, and predictability and to help both sides avoid misunderstandings. Russia and the United States routinely flight test their ICBMs and SLBMs."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine/)
After already proudly scraping the long-range missile defense plan in 2009, Obama grows fond of NATO's short range plan, until Medvedev tells Obama that Putin is upset about NATO talks of a missile shield that would border Russia. But, missile defense was popular because of Iran, and it was an election year.
"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
. . .and dang! Wouldn't you know it, that NATO missile defense shield never got built at that Ukrainian radar station.
Aqua, I don't think it's funny that Russia is firing an ICBM. I think it's horrifying, and the only reason they did it was to tell the world:
LOOK WHAT WE CAN DO. WE'RE BACK! As for the timing:
QuoteA Pentagon official told CBS News that the U.S. detected the launch of the Russian ICBM near the border of Russia and Kazakhstan. Notifications were made ahead of time in accordance with normal procedures. The official said the launch is viewed as non-threatening and is not connected to what is going on in Crimea.
That's exactly what the Pentagon is going to say. Can you imagine what would happen if they said "Wow! this was a surprise."
Probably got 24hours notification, and considered their spin strategy. At least they're not blaming it on an internet video.
If they've had notification for a while, wouldn't' you think they (and Russia for that matter) would notify the press so that people wouldn't' become alarmed?
Except they've been doing this regularly. Korea also shot off a missile but we also knew about that one. Zip up. Your obsession is showing.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 03:29:28 PM
Except they've been doing this regularly. Korea also shot off a missile but we also knew about that one. Zip up. Your obsession is showing.
I suppose you are right. Nothing to see here.
Of course this is serious business. Criticizing our leaders and pulling up quotes out of context from the past aren't solutions though. More flexibility after an election. Really? Who would have guessed that. Maybe....Reagan?
Wonder why we've heard nothing from Ron Paul or his progeny? Or Ted Cruz or the rest of our high profile Teapartiers. Ms.Palin? Can you see any contrails dear?
individuals talking softly into a thunderstorm...or whatever you want to use to define posting on the forum about this.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 03:30:36 PM
I suppose you are right. Nothing to see here.
Calm down, we have tested the Trident II successfully 143 times and as recently last October. It just doesn't make the news. Quit being so dramatic.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/october/1031-ss-trident.html
Now the Trident II D5 is a truly scary weapon. Each missile has 5-8 independently targetable half megaton warheads. 24 Trident II D5 missiles are on each one of our 14 nuclear armed Ohio class subs. The subs don't even have to surface to fire. You know we have one or two of those in the Black Sea right now. Putin knows that too, though he doesn't know exactly where. Putin wants to rebuild the Russian (Soviet) empire, not burn it down.
Wonder if Turkey wants the old Jupiter Missiles back that we had there in the early 60's.
Speaking of US ships, are the ones we sent to the Black Sea in case we needed to evacuate US citizens from the Olympics still in the area? The Black Sea is setting up to be a knife fight in a phone booth with all of the Ukraine and Russian ships headed there.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 03:36:58 PM
Wonder why we've heard nothing from Ron Paul or his progeny? Or Ted Cruz or the rest of our high profile Teapartiers. Ms.Palin? Can you see any contrails dear?
Are you serious? Palin has been all over this. Part of her "idiot" rap was her comment about Russia and the Ukraine from 2008--which turned out to be TRUE.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/03/sarah-palin-was-right-about-ukraine/
Then there's this:
Quote"People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans," Palin said "Anyone who carries the commonsense gene would know that Putin doesn't change his stripes," she said. "He wants to exert huge power and dominance, so he has to get to those border areas and he has to capture them."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/palin-obama-wears-mom-jeans
Who knew that CF and swake would be outed as closeted Palin-ites over this event, and I at this point really couldn't care. But I will enjoy watching her and and Romney gloat over their accuracy.
Quote from: swake on March 04, 2014, 03:50:51 PM
Calm down, we have tested the Trident II successfully 143 times and as recently last October. It just doesn't make the news. Quit being so dramatic.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/october/1031-ss-trident.html
Now the Trident II D5 is a truly scary weapon. Each missile has 5-8 independently targetable half megaton warheads. 24 Trident II D5 missiles are on each one of our 14 nuclear armed Ohio class subs. The subs don't even have to surface to fire. You know we have one or two of those in the Black Sea right now. Putin knows that too, though he doesn't know exactly where. Putin wants to rebuild the Russian (Soviet) empire, not burn it down.
The paper tiger has nuclear teeth.
No matter what his intensions are, you can be assured they will not play to our advantage. I just pray that our president is willing to deliver more than lip-service. Putin has Crimea and is not going to pull back. Best we can hope for is to somehow keep him from using this victory as an excuse to take other former soviet properties under the premise that they are Russia's to take.
Putin is nothing but ego and action. On the contrary, Kerry's comment on Sunday pretty much sums up the amazing diplomacy skills he brings to the table.
"Invasion is not the act of someone who is strong. It is the act of someone who is weak." I'm sure this really made Putin think about his life, and how he may have hurt people.
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q169/artilleryleg/DavidVanDriessen.jpg)
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on March 04, 2014, 02:59:35 PM
It was a planned test firing. It was not a surprise test.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine/)
(http://bookfightpod.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/spieslikeus10124.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 04, 2014, 04:25:31 PM
(http://bookfightpod.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/spieslikeus10124.jpg)
Vanessa Angel's best movie.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 04, 2014, 04:25:31 PM
(http://bookfightpod.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/spieslikeus10124.jpg)
Just watched that the other night, needed a good laugh.
Found a pic of Putin's father........
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YKJLRmojKXs/USLfWJiYcGI/AAAAAAAAEvQ/x7BYxGpcPk8/s1600/mwbw-drstrangelove.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on March 04, 2014, 04:13:57 PM
Are you serious? Palin has been all over this. Part of her "idiot" rap was her comment about Russia and the Ukraine from 2008--which turned out to be TRUE.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/03/sarah-palin-was-right-about-ukraine/
Then there's this:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/palin-obama-wears-mom-jeans
Who knew that CF and swake would be outed as closeted Palin-ites over this event, and I at this point really couldn't care. But I will enjoy watching her and and Romney gloat over their accuracy.
Please, SP just parroted one of the comebacks that she was given during her Sept 08' 2 week crash course which included (1). Basic History and Geography of the Contiguous 48 (2). Intro to World Affairs (3) Names and Places for 100 and (4). How to Whine Louder and Longer.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 04:20:38 PM
The paper tiger has nuclear teeth.
No matter what his intensions are, you can be assured they will not play to our advantage. I just pray that our president is willing to deliver more than lip-service. Putin has Crimea and is not going to pull back. Best we can hope for is to somehow keep him from using this victory as an excuse to take other former soviet properties under the premise that they are Russia's to take.
Putin is nothing but ego and action. On the contrary, Kerry's comment on Sunday pretty much sums up the amazing diplomacy skills he brings to the table. "Invasion is not the act of someone who is strong. It is the act of someone who is weak." I'm sure this really made Putin think about his life, and how he may have hurt people.
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q169/artilleryleg/DavidVanDriessen.jpg)
Don't you get it? This isn't Putin displaying strength, this is his dealing with failure, his weakness, and most of all, his fear. NATO and the West keep getting closer and closer to Moscow's doorstep. That's what the overthrow of the government in Ukraine means. His stupidly invading solidifies Ukraine's permanently allying with the West, and probably several other old Soviet countries too.
This isn't the powerlessness of the US and the West, this is the power of the US and the West. The frontier of US and NATO power in 1989 was Berlin, today more and more of what used to the Soviet Union itself becomes part of the West and NATO. Putin's dreams of resurrecting his empire are dead. And he's pissed off about it.
In the real world, from what I have read the dominant naval force in the Black Sea is Turkey, which of course is part of NATO. Also, the brand new US aircraft carrier George HW Bush and it's carrier group just entered the Med. If Russia's navy isn't a match for the Turks, it's certainly no match for the carrier group AND the Turkish Navy. Add to that Turkey controlling access in and out of the Black Sea and if things do go south the Russian Black Sea Fleet is in a really bad situation. They may be able to intimidate Ukraine's little Navy, but they aren't really strong.
Quote from: guido911 on March 04, 2014, 04:13:57 PM
Are you serious? Palin has been all over this. Part of her "idiot" rap was her comment about Russia and the Ukraine from 2008--which turned out to be TRUE.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/03/sarah-palin-was-right-about-ukraine/
Then there's this:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/palin-obama-wears-mom-jeans
Who knew that CF and swake would be outed as closeted Palin-ites over this event, and I at this point really couldn't care. But I will enjoy watching her and and Romney gloat over their accuracy.
You're getting to be as much giggles as Gas. Did you read anything but the headline of that story?...."Regardless of whether Palin had ESP or was just a broken clock that happened to tell the correct time, postulating that a forceful U.S. response to Russia during the brief 2008 Russia-Georgia War would have deterred Moscow from attacking Ukraine today,
is as unlikely a scenario as imagining that then-Senator Obama could have changed U.S. policy.In 2008, the U.S. military was stretched like a rubber band, trying to fight simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. George W. Bush's White House, which could hardly be described as shy about using force, didn't have the resources for another conflict, and every U.S. President – Republican or Democrat – has trod very carefully in any situation that might put American troops in a shooting war with a nuclear-armed Russia. The Bush administration did ship humanitarian aid to Georgia, Western Europe criticized Russia, and that was all. Jimmy Carter ordered the U.S. to boycott the 1980 Olympics over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Russian troops stayed in that country another 10 years.
Perhaps the biggest lesson of the Russia-Georgia conflict was that it is dangerous for Russia's smaller neighbors to think of joining NATO, as Georgia hoped to do, which Ukraine has flirted with, and which the three small Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have actually done.
Regardless of what Senator Obama said in 2008 or President Obama did today, Russia would protect what it perceives as its vital interests.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 05:44:50 PM
Regardless of what Senator Obama said in 2008 or President Obama did today, Russia would protect what it perceives as its vital interests.
And that's what they are doing. If they lose Ukraine and Crimea, they will be a land locked country with out a port, and those two countries could kick the Russian Navy out. Also the former Eastern Block countries want to have their own trade with the west and have access to hard currency.
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on March 04, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
If they lose Ukraine and Crimea, they will be a land locked country with out a port
Russia proper also borders the Black Sea. The Black Sea Fleet is based in Crimea for historical reasons. Plans were to move it before 2042 when the current lease expires anyway. It also has coastlines on the Baltic Sea, the Arctic Sea, and the Pacific Ocean. They are not land-locked by any means, with or without Ukraine.
Taking over Crimea does conveniently bring a planned gas pipeline under complete Russian control, however. Perhaps Putin doesn't want gas from Georgia to have a way around Russia to Europe?
Quote from: nathanm on March 04, 2014, 07:52:11 PM
Perhaps Putin doesn't want gas from Georgia to have a way around Russia to Europe?
Putin must have been watching James Bond movies.
I just appreciate all of you sharing your Google searches to keep me informed on this conflict.
Cheers!
Quote from: Conan71 on March 04, 2014, 08:28:31 AM
That's always been the USSR/Russia's strongest weapon. Only after the cold war was over did we finally realize how much of the USSR's armament was bluff and bluster.
C Yes, propaganda has been their trump card. However, I just wonder if it will be effective as effective in 2014 as it was in the 50's - 70's/80's when it was fueled by total intimidation and fear of harm. My sense is that should Russia immerse itself in a major external conflict and if/or there are heavy economic sanctions imposed upon the country, it becomes more fertile for internal strife and insurrection. The military can't fight elsewhere and effectively police/ control (beat the smoot out of) their citizens at the same time. The time may be near when Putin and his ilk can no longer expect that the masses will remain so sheepish under what they know is corrupt, rogue, and disingenuous leadership.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 04, 2014, 05:44:50 PM
You're getting to be as much giggles as Gas. Did you read anything but the headline of that story?...."Regardless of whether Palin had ESP or was just a broken clock that happened to tell the correct time, postulating that a forceful U.S. response to Russia during the brief 2008 Russia-Georgia War would have deterred Moscow from attacking Ukraine today, is as unlikely a scenario as imagining that then-Senator Obama could have changed U.S. policy.
In 2008, the U.S. military was stretched like a rubber band, trying to fight simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. George W. Bush's White House, which could hardly be described as shy about using force, didn't have the resources for another conflict, and every U.S. President – Republican or Democrat – has trod very carefully in any situation that might put American troops in a shooting war with a nuclear-armed Russia. The Bush administration did ship humanitarian aid to Georgia, Western Europe criticized Russia, and that was all. Jimmy Carter ordered the U.S. to boycott the 1980 Olympics over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Russian troops stayed in that country another 10 years.
Perhaps the biggest lesson of the Russia-Georgia conflict was that it is dangerous for Russia's smaller neighbors to think of joining NATO, as Georgia hoped to do, which Ukraine has flirted with, and which the three small Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have actually done. Regardless of what Senator Obama said in 2008 or President Obama did today, Russia would protect what it perceives as its vital interests.
Did you read the article, or who wrote it, and what the author was defending? Please aqua, don't lead with your chin with me....
Obama getting ripped on by Iran now?
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-general-obamas-threats-are-the-joke-of-the-year/#ixzz2v1bF22DF
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2014, 04:47:24 AM
Did you read the article, or who wrote it, and what the author was defending? Please aqua, don't lead with your chin with me....
yes I did. You were exposed. If you don't like the source don't link to it.
To the rescue!
This is the strength we should have seen from President Obama, and SS John Kerry yesterday. This is how you send a strong message of condemnation, but do it in such a way as to urge negotiation.
(http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/hillary-clinton-food-security.jpg)
http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20140304/hillary-clinton-compares-vladimir-putins-actions-in-ukraine-to-adolf-hitlers-in-nazi-germany
LONG BEACH >> Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday compared recent actions by Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine to those implemented by Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.
Putin's desire to protect minority Russians in Ukraine is reminiscent of Hitler's actions to protect ethnic Germans outside Germany, she said.
Putin has been on a campaign to give Russian passports to anyone who has Russian connections, Clinton said.
The Russian leader has recently done so in the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, which, Clinton said, is similar to what happened in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. Hitler resettled tens of thousands of ethnic Germans who were living in parts of Europe to Nazi Germany.
Putin is a man "who believes his mission is to restore Russian greatness," Clinton said.
That includes reasserting control of what used to be countries under the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, she said.
"When he looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia."
If Ukraine and Russia are to reach any kind of compromise, negotiations may start in Crimea, Clinton said.
"I think that's where the negotiations will start," she said.
"So everybody is hoping that there will be a negotiation but a negotiation that respects Ukraine and doesn't ratify a reoccupation by Russia of Crimea," she said. "So it's a real nail-biter, right now, but nobody wants to up the rhetoric. Everybody wants to cool it in order to find a diplomatic solution and that's what we should be trying to do."
Instead we got:
Obama: "we stand on the side of history" and Kerry:"Invasion is not the act of someone who is strong. It is the act of someone who is weak." **throws medals away, and sheds a tear**
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh5gzeJIgAEt9KN.jpg)(http://www.gq.com/style/blogs/the-gq-eye/john-kerry-dad-jeans-600.jpg)
I wouldn't at all be surprised if she flies to Russia to meet with Vlad immediately. Meanwhile Kerry gets stood-up.
So, we can expect you to support her in the next presidential campaign? Not likely.
You cherry picked quotes from these guys and put them with light weight pics while showing Cllinton's remarks in full with a serious pic. Must just be pissing you off that this is going to be resolved under the leadership of people you work so hard to denigrate. You wanted war talk and all you're going to get is yet another diplomatic solution. Dang. Truth is, it makes you lose more and more credibility.
I think I finally figured it out. The wingers want us to bomb Russia so that they will launch some nukes and set off nuclear winter, thus stopping global warming in its tracks! ;D
Interestingly, it turns out that India and Pakistan launching even a third of their arsenals at each other (less than 50 bombs total) would pump 5 gigatons of smoke and ash into the upper atmosphere, cutting off 10-20% of the sunlight for 4-5 years.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 05, 2014, 09:54:50 AM
So, we can expect you to support her in the next presidential campaign? Not likely.
You cherry picked quotes from these guys and put them with light weight pics while showing Cllinton's remarks in full with a serious pic. Must just be pissing you off that this is going to be resolved under the leadership of people you work so hard to denigrate. You wanted war talk and all you're going to get is yet another diplomatic solution. Dang. Truth is, it makes you lose more and more credibility.
Why in the hell do you think I would want war talk? Clinton made a forceful and degrading analogy and then she showed actual understanding of the situation and a desire for resolution that involved negotiation.
Obama an Kerry have yet to say anything meaningful, and I think even their fanatical apologists would like to see that.
War grows out of ignorance, indecision and unwillingness to present a clear foreign policy. Putin is doing what he is doing because he knows he can expect little from Obama except confusion. It's like watching Garry Kasparov play chess with a muppet. Hopefully it is not too late and leaders like the Clintons can work to bring parties together or at least advise the president on how to lead in this situation.
I would not rule out voting for Hillary. I respect her cunning and the Clinton free-market economic policies that value small business. I disliked her socialized approach to medicine, but that's a dead subject now.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 10:16:07 AM
Why in the hell do you think I would want war talk? Clinton made a forceful and degrading analogy and then she showed actual understanding of the situation and a desire for resolution that involved negotiation.
Obama an Kerry have yet to say anything meaningful, and I think even their fanatical apologists would like to see that.
War grows out of ignorance, indecision and unwillingness to present a clear foreign policy. Putin is doing what he is doing because he knows he can expect little from Obama except confusion. It's like watching Garry Kasparov play chess with a muppet. Hopefully it is not too late and leaders like the Clintons can work to bring parties together or at least advise the president on how to lead in this situation.
I would not rule out voting for Hillary. I respect her cunning and the Clinton free-market economic policies that value small business. I disliked her socialized approach to medicine, but that's a dead subject now.
Are you under the impression that Obama's done nothing about this?
Quote from: Townsend on March 05, 2014, 10:20:45 AM
Are you under the impression that Obama's done nothing about this?
Where has he emerged as leading on this?
He campaigns well. He leads poorly. He needs surrogates to manage such issues.
He is a rhetorical president.
Gas, Why? Because I read and re-read your posts (and pics) on this thread. That's when you showed the most enthusiasm and glee when you could show a line of howitzers or post a misleading gush about a missile being fired.
You have no idea, none, nothing, zero knowledge of what is being said between leaders and their secretaries of state. You quote others and offer opinions. Kind of like a Fox news personality.
Former SS Clinton's remarks are nothing more than comments from the outside that are not only common knowledge but are likely being used so that the president isn't having to posture like Putin did. This is a team president. She didn't speak without some prior contact with the administration I assure you.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 05, 2014, 10:32:19 AM
Gas, Why? Because I read and re-read your posts (and pics) on this thread. That's when you showed the most enthusiasm and glee when you could show a line of howitzers or post a misleading gush about a missile being fired.
You have no idea, none, nothing, zero knowledge of what is being said between leaders and their secretaries of state. You quote others and offer opinions. Kind of like a Fox news personality.
Former SS Clinton's remarks are nothing more than comments from the outside that are not only common knowledge but are likely being used so that the president isn't having to posture like Putin did. This is a team president. She didn't speak without some prior contact with the administration I assure you.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps presenting the optics of feckless foreign policy is part of a larger strategy far more brilliant than any of us know.
Lets see what happens. You good with that?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 10:30:09 AM
Where has he emerged as leading on this?
Where has it emerged that he's done nothing? The GOP?
What have they said he's not done? I bet if you took a look, it has been done and they are in denial.
We post on these threads pretending to know something. Hell, we don't have a clue about things happening around Tulsa much less internationally.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 09:20:19 AM
To the rescue!
This is the strength we should have seen from President Obama, and SS John Kerry yesterday. This is how you send a strong message of condemnation, but do it in such a way as to urge negotiation.
(http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/hillary-clinton-food-security.jpg)
http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20140304/hillary-clinton-compares-vladimir-putins-actions-in-ukraine-to-adolf-hitlers-in-nazi-germany
LONG BEACH >> Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday compared recent actions by Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine to those implemented by Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.
Putin's desire to protect minority Russians in Ukraine is reminiscent of Hitler's actions to protect ethnic Germans outside Germany, she said.
Putin has been on a campaign to give Russian passports to anyone who has Russian connections, Clinton said.
The Russian leader has recently done so in the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, which, Clinton said, is similar to what happened in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. Hitler resettled tens of thousands of ethnic Germans who were living in parts of Europe to Nazi Germany.
Putin is a man "who believes his mission is to restore Russian greatness," Clinton said.
That includes reasserting control of what used to be countries under the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, she said.
"When he looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia."
If Ukraine and Russia are to reach any kind of compromise, negotiations may start in Crimea, Clinton said.
"I think that's where the negotiations will start," she said.
"So everybody is hoping that there will be a negotiation but a negotiation that respects Ukraine and doesn't ratify a reoccupation by Russia of Crimea," she said. "So it's a real nail-biter, right now, but nobody wants to up the rhetoric. Everybody wants to cool it in order to find a diplomatic solution and that's what we should be trying to do."
Instead we got:
Obama: "we stand on the side of history" and Kerry:"Invasion is not the act of someone who is strong. It is the act of someone who is weak." **throws medals away, and sheds a tear**
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh5gzeJIgAEt9KN.jpg)(http://www.gq.com/style/blogs/the-gq-eye/john-kerry-dad-jeans-600.jpg)
I wouldn't at all be surprised if she flies to Russia to meet with Vlad immediately. Meanwhile Kerry gets stood-up.
I called that one correctly. Punt it to one of the Clintons.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 10:39:20 AM
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps presenting the optics of feckless foreign policy is part of a larger strategy far more brilliant than any of us know.
Lets see what happens. You good with that?
You just had to throw in a perjorative dintja?
I'm never as happy with sarcasm as I am with faith. I have faith in my government whether its Fallin, Inhofe, Reid, Boehner or Coumo that they are operating with more information than I have, better advisors and with all our best interests at heart. Without that faith I'd have to become a tea partier.
Quote from: Townsend on March 05, 2014, 11:03:22 AM
Where has it emerged that he's done nothing? The GOP?
What have they said he's not done? I bet if you took a look, it has been done and they are in denial.
We post on these threads pretending to know something. Hell, we don't have a clue about things happening around Tulsa much less internationally.
No. All we see is what is reported in the international media.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh-uQtOCAAAgNud.png)
Oh yeah. Cause all you need to know about international politics can be found in editorial cartoons.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 11:53:49 AM
No. All we see is what is reported in the international media.
What has the US not done that it should do pertaining to Ukraine?
Quote from: Townsend on March 05, 2014, 12:10:18 PM
What has the US not done that it should do pertaining to Ukraine?
They invaded an ally and partner.
All foreign aid to Russia should be suspended.
Oil and metal trade should be suspended and offset by opening our reserves.
We cut off $330 million dollars we send them in economic assistance, and the $101 million we pay them for military assistance.
We coordinate with our European allies to do the same.
Bullies get suspended.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 12:18:41 PM
All foreign aid to Russia should be suspended.
Oil and metal trade should be suspended and offset by opening our reserves.
We cut off $330 million dollars we send them in economic assistance, and the $101 million we pay them for military assistance.
We coordinate with our European allies to do the same.
What will the repercussions be once you get these things done?
Sanctions On Russia: Why The Europeans May Say Nyethttp://kwgs.com/post/sanctions-russia-why-europeans-may-say-nyet (http://kwgs.com/post/sanctions-russia-why-europeans-may-say-nyet)
QuoteRussia's seizure of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula brought with it threats of U.S. sanctions, but Europe, while condemning President Vladimir Putin's actions, has been more circumspect. Part of the reason: Europe's dependence on Russian money and energy.
"It is a matter of simple economics," Alex Melikishvili, senior Europe/CIS Analyst at IHS Country Risk, said in an email.
He noted that the EU is Russia's main trade partner; bilateral trade is in hundreds of billion of dollars annually, in contrast with much lower U.S.-Russia trade (see chart).
"As a result, forging a coordinated response without harming vital economic interests of EU states who are also, to a large extent, dependent on Russian gas supplies ... is a complicated and time-consuming effort," he said.
Here's the potential impact that sanctions could have on different European countries and Russia:
Germany
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who reportedly told President Obama that Putin appears to be "in another world" on Ukraine, wants mediation to resolve the standoff, and is seen as "the crucial European player in the Ukraine-Russia conundrum."
Russia is Germany's top supplier of natural gas. Much of that gas travels to Europe via pipelines that run through Ukraine.
Russia and Ukraine have had disputes in the past when Ukraine has fallen behind in its gas payments. Moscow has threatened to turn off the taps but has not done so, presumably because of the impact it would have not just on Ukraine, but also on customers that pay more reliably, such as Germany and other countries in Europe.
Britain
A British document, photographed by a freelance photographer, says the U.K. should "not support, for now, trade sanctions ... or close London's financial centre to Russians."
That's probably because London is seen a safe haven by many Russian oligarchs. According to one recent study, Russians bought 8.5 percent of all London properties worth more than $4.17 million from March 2012-March 2013. That sort of buying has created a property bubble in the U.K. capital, one that could deflate if there are broad economic sanctions on Russia.
Britain, slowly recovering from the global economic crisis of 2008, needs the money. In fact, it even auctions off the right to live in the country for 1 million pounds (about $1.7 million). Since 2008, 433 Russian millionaires have come to the U.K. using that scheme.
The European Union
An EU communique released Monday condemned Russia's actions but took just one step – suspending Russia's participation in the G8 summit in Sochi in June. If Russia doesn't reverse course in Ukraine, the EU said, it could suspend talks on a visa program that would make it easier for Russians to visit European countries.
But individual states are reluctant: Austrian and French banks are heavily exposed to the Russian market. The Economist notes that a proposal for an arms embargo was scrapped because of objections from France, which has lucrative defense deals with Russia. And one Italian official told the magazine: "What sanctions can you place on a country that can cut off your gas?"
Russia
Russia is now part of the global economy.
"Modern Russia is not Soviet Union," notes Melikishvili, of IHS.
The EU is Russia's top trading partner, accounting for more than 40 percent of all trade. Much of that is energy: 84 percent of Russia's oil exports and about 76 percent of gas exports go to Western Europe.
European companies have invested heavily in the country, creating jobs and consumers. Also, Russia's elites have tens of billions of dollars stashed overseas. Any multilateral sanctions regime will have an impact. Indeed, Russian stocks crashed Monday, wiping out $60 billion of their value, amid tensions on the Crimean Peninsula, though they have since rebounded.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 05, 2014, 10:32:19 AM
You have no idea, none, nothing, zero knowledge of what is being said between leaders and their secretaries of state. You quote others and offer opinions. Kind of like a Fox news personality.
Former SS Clinton's remarks are nothing more than comments from the outside that are not only common knowledge but are likely being used so that the president isn't having to posture like Putin did. This is a team president. She didn't speak without some prior contact with the administration I assure you.
Interesting
Quote from: Townsend on March 05, 2014, 12:33:37 PM
What will the repercussions be once you get these things done?
What are the repercussions of inaction or anemic action?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
What are the repercussions of inaction or anemic action?
Obviously there's been action. Anemic or not, that's opinion. Obviously we have no idea.
But let's try again, what are the repercussions of the actions you'd like to take?
Quote from: AquaMan on March 05, 2014, 09:54:50 AM
So, we can expect you to support her in the next presidential campaign? Not likely.
I never really thought about it, but I can't really name an actual accomplishment either? I mean she really moved into the spotlight after the Lewinsky scandal. Before that she was an accomplished lawyer.
Heard on the radio yesterday:
"President Obama's actions regarding the Ukraine are the worst options I have heard so far,... except for all the others."
"Nobody has the 'right' answer, because it doesn't exist."
About the best political commentary I've heard so far on the situation.
Quote from: Townsend on March 05, 2014, 12:57:33 PM
Obviously there's been action. Anemic or not, that's opinion. Obviously we have no idea.
But let's try again, what are the repercussions of the actions you'd like to take?
No, we have an idea. We're going to teach the Pols to fly more better.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-bolster-military-support-poland-baltic-162411959.html
Washington (AFP) - The United States plans to expand military cooperation with Poland and Baltic states to show "support" for its allies after Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel said Wednesday.
"This morning the Defense Department is pursuing measures to support our allies," including expanded aviation training in Poland and increasing the US role in NATO's air policing mission over Baltic countries, Hagel told lawmakers.
NATO's top commander and head of the US European Command, General Philip Breedlove, also planned to confer with Central and Eastern European defense chiefs, Hagel said.
"This is a time for wise, steady, and firm leadership," Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"It is a time for all of us to stand with the Ukrainian people in support of their territorial integrity and sovereignty, and their right to have a government that fulfills the aspirations of its people."
What I proposed should be expected consequences. Attack us or our allies and we stop paying you. To expect anything else would be moronic.
What would you propose?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 01:07:46 PM
No, we have an idea.
What I proposed should be expected consequences. Attack us or our allies and we stop paying you. To expect anything else would be moronic.
What would you propose?
Why do you link so many stories but not something to support your analysis or your numbers?
You have opinions but have no idea.
My proposal? I have none. I'm not suffering from delusions that I can do anything about it. I can barely do anything to get something done locally.
Quote from: Townsend on March 05, 2014, 01:13:51 PM
Why do you link so many stories but not something to support your analysis or your numbers?
Sorry, thought you had the google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 01:30:38 PM
Sorry, thought you had the google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
You're not doing it right.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 01:07:46 PM
What I proposed should be expected consequences. Attack us or our allies and we stop paying you. To expect anything else would be moronic.
What would you propose?
Again you misunderstand what is going on here. There is no need for a proposal here. There are rules that Russia well knows. Attack us or our allies and we stop paying you? That's not what happens.
Poland has already invoked Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which means that they feel threatened and want "consultation of member states". This is the same article that Turkey invoked when Syria shot down a Turkish jet last year and why we placed anti-missile batteries there. If the Baltics or Poland are attacked Article 5 is invoked and we are at war. Period. All the way. That's how NATO works. Article 5 says if any member is attacked, all of NATO is attacked and at war. The only time that has been invoked was by us after 9/11.
This is why Putin is fighting so hard for Ukraine to NOT be part of NATO or the EU.
A little levity never hurts...
(http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/598x385xputin-laughing-hah.jpg.pagespeed.ic.a6fWb2OBB7.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh6F40NCcAAPyU7.jpg)
Sheesh. Here's a newscaster making it all about herself. Click the video for maximum self-absorption.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/03/05/rt-anchor-quits-on-air.html
Quote from: Gaspar on March 05, 2014, 12:18:41 PM
They invaded an ally and partner.
\
Really? I checked a lot of sources and this is what I found. Kiev is a Russian Ally. Our partner? Ukraine is a member of the Moscow economic union. They want to be in the EU but thats part of the problem. Wiki lists Ukraine as a PfP ally of the US (party and play?).
What source do you have to consider them an Ally and a Partner?
Quote from: rebound on March 05, 2014, 01:03:54 PM
Heard on the radio yesterday:
"President Obama's actions regarding the Ukraine are the worst options I have heard so far,... except for all the others."
"Nobody has the 'right' answer, because it doesn't exist."
About the best political commentary I've heard so far on the situation.
Good remarks. What station?
Townsend:
I'm with Gas on this one. To continue to pay Russia foreign aid and military assistance to the tune of at least $250,000,000 a year, is crazy. Russia has set themselves up to be "anti-America" and is even sending out propaganda that the USA is threatening Russians in Crimea, wants to ban the Russian language, and has infiltrated the new Ukrainian government (which explains the very odd protests of "Yankee go home" happening in parts of Eastern Ukraine). Putin is playing the anti-American card as hard as anyone else - and we are funding it? That makes no sense.
What are the repercussions? Putin can do whatever he wants. Possibilities include:
1) Cutting off gas supplies to Europe (which he does every now and then anyway, and which hurts him economically)
2) Ceasing foreign assets (which he can do whenever he wants anyway, and would hurt him economically in the long wrong. See, .e.g, Venezuela's economy the last 5 years. It will also result in a World Bank/IMF judgment and levy against Russia - so it would be pointless. Ignoring the fact he is seizing assets because we stop gifting him money... which is insane)
3) Send his military into a friendly country (which he already does about every 5 years)
4) Obstruct anything the UN is trying to do (which they already do)
5) Help Iran build nuclear technology (which Russia already does)
6) Support a proxy war in Syria (already doing that)
7) Assist other countries that are anti-US (already does that)
8) Attempt to destroy the economy of eastern Europe (regularly does that by banning imports, cutting off markets, disallowing remissions, and messing with energy supplies)
9) Remove billions of euros from London, German and Swiss Banks (unless the funds are frozen first. The billions are really money embezzled by cronies anyway - how do you think Putin [who has never worked outside of government] amassed a fortune of $70,000,0000,000.00 while making $187,000 a year as President? The guys watch collection is worth $1mil. Only Gaddafi stole more from his country. BUT - this would be costly for the London financial sector. The UK has always been happy to sell expensive things, harbor assets, and build fancy boats for corrupt oligarchs in exchange for profits )
10) Actual war (this ends very badly for Russia. The USA outspends Russia 10:1, not counting NATO on our side. The nuclear option would only be brought up once Putin was defeated and tried to save face. This is a bad option for everyone, but a horrible option for Putin)
Putin can certainly be a jerk. But every action he takes has a reaction somewhere else, all which hurt him even more. We cut off $250mil in aid, so he loses $1 billion in oil revenue to punish us?
If nothing else, Putin is a rational actor. Putin does what is in Putin's best interest (note: not Russia's). I don't think he is too hard to predict, and the USA isn't stupid in this game. You can hate Kerry, you can think Obama is stupid. It matters little - we have many people who have done nothing but make and update plans to deal with a belligerent Russia for decades.
My guess, unless a rogue actor messes it up:
We keep talking an we keep adding pressure. Sanctions will happen in some way or another (cutting off aid to Russia, increasing aid to Ukraine, freezing assets...). Russia will continue a blatantly false propaganda campaign about "home grown security forces" driving around in tanks and artillery from the surplus store, blaming Nazis (while conducting the terror campaign themselves), and the west. Russia will do everything they can do avoid a shooting war (BUT - whipping up Russian nationalism in the Crimea runs the risk of creating nationalists who actually start shooting).
Eventually, an agreement is hammered out that Russia goes back to their bases. By some guarantee (observers maybe?) the Ukraine will say no harm will come to ethnic Russians AND a referendum on Crimean's political future will transpire within X years (2-3 is my guess). Having stacked the deck, the referendum goes to Russia's supporters and Putin gets what he wants. And that might not be a bad outcome really... but the manner is what's wrong.
***[warning, history and law deviation]***
Crimea has been heavily influenced by Russia since the defeat of the Tartars in the late 1700's (challenged by everyone from Poland to the Ottomans to England). After WWII it was transferred to the Ukraine basically because that's where it belonged. With the fall of the Soviet Union Crimea voted to become part of an independent Ukraine. In 1994 Russia agreed to recognize the territorial integrity of the Crimea in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons (to Russia). The USA, Britain and France were also parties to the agreement. To wit:
Quote
Russia, the US, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and relinquishing its nuclear arsenal to Russia, the agreeing parties will:
- Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
- Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
- Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
- Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
- Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484
Id' say Putin has violated at least 50% of the commitments. That can't just stand. Allowing a "referendum" at this point goes against the entire agreement. If it succeeds, it follows wanton violations of the agreement that clearly influenced the outcome.
So it isn't the fact that Crimea might break away. The place has always been a mess. If ethnic Ukrainians are forced to leave (they will be, if not at gunpoint then with hostility) and ethnic Russian move there from the Ukraine, it could be a stabilizing force in the long run.
The sad fact is, every stable point on the map is that way because at some point one self-identified group destroyed, subjugated, or incorporated the other group(s) in the area. Often creating the very identity that comes to dominate. "Americans" dominated the English and the Natives. "Germans" in central Europe. "Italians." Nine generations ago there was nothing called an "American." A "German" or "Italian" didn't exist until 3 or 4 generations ago. Going way back even "Englishmen" and "French" lacked, and even kind of swapped identities. Way way back the Chinese and Japanese dominated their respected territories. South American, Central America and Australia essentially wiped out the natives and started clean. But the Balkans have always been a crossroads, since the Ottomans and Hapsburg got weak the area has been a mess. Africa had fake lines drawn and has never sorted itself out. Again, sad fact - but it seems to hold true.
Wow. Now THAT was a ramble. I DARE you to respond (visa vis Distinguished Gentlemen).
Here is a fun fact:
According to the State-run polling group in Russia - 73% of Russian's are against intervening in the Ukraine.
QuoteThe truth is that most Russians oppose intervention in Ukraine. Even the state-run Russian Public Opinion Research Center found last month that 73 percent of Russians are against it . The unanimous vote by unelected "senators" last week granting Putin's request to use military force in Ukraine illustrates the unrepresentative and authoritarian nature of Russia's political system. Consider the irony that, while Putin's officials justified the invasion by citing the need to "protect Russians in Ukraine," Putin's police forces were arresting and beating Russians on the streets of Moscow and St. Petersburg for protesting against war. More than 300 people were arrested Sunday alone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ukraine-is-putins-not-russias-war/2014/03/04/f587b698-a337-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html [internal citations omitted]
The article goes on to point out that nearly every war Russia instigates ends badly for them. From the previous Crimean war through Afghanistan.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2014, 05:58:42 PM
Sheesh. Here's a newscaster making it all about herself. Click the video for maximum self-absorption.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/03/05/rt-anchor-quits-on-air.html
Rumor has it now that she will be replaced by Piers Morgan, and when confronted on Twitter by none other than Gary Kasperov, Piers is not denying it.
@piersmorgan
Blimey, Grandmaster, that IS amazing > RT @Kasparov63: So CNN fired Piers Morgan but apparently Putin hired him! Amazing.
Crimean legislators surrounded by Russian troops "choose" to join Russia. My shocked face:
(http://lrrpublic.cli.det.nsw.edu.au/lrrSecure/Sites/Web/13775/graphics/Funny_face_still1.jpg)
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-parliament-votes-join-russia-201436103034167985.html
Quote from: AquaMan on March 05, 2014, 06:28:07 PM
Good remarks. What station?
POTUS Radio on XM Satellite.
Quote from: rebound on March 06, 2014, 08:29:50 AM
POTUS Radio on XM Satellite.
More and more, that is becoming a great station if you want to avoid the massive swinging biases of the major networks.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 05, 2014, 06:39:24 PM
I DARE you to respond (visa vis Distinguished Gentlemen).
Even if I had any idea what the actual ends would be, what would be the point?
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/russia-allowed-to-have-25000-troops-in.html (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/russia-allowed-to-have-25000-troops-in.html)
I guess Russia has a treaty allowing them to have troops in the Ukraine?
Quote from: CharlieSheen on March 06, 2014, 09:14:51 AM
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/russia-allowed-to-have-25000-troops-in.html (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/russia-allowed-to-have-25000-troops-in.html)
I guess Russia has a treaty allowing them to have troops in the Ukraine?
Probably doesn't allow them to occupy airports or navel bases.
Joke:
Russian soldier arrives at Tulsa International, as he is going through customs the customs officer asks him: "Occupation?"
Russian soldier responds: "No, just visiting."
Any rational discourse is coming to a fast end. Congressmen now feel safe enough to start criticizing the president more than Putin's actions. They are ready to lead .....the villagers and light their torches. Note to those unpatriotic fools: God still loves you but is a bit concerned about your level of commitment when faced with possible nuclear annihilation and the destruction of his world.
The incredible, visceral hatred that anti-O's have nurtured would hamstring any leader but this group in the house is the definition of fanatical. They know this is conservative manna with an off year election nearing. They desperately want the Senate and would commit troops in Europe to get it. They remind me of groups that yell "Jump!" to suicidal people. Yesterday, an otherwise credible person told me he wished we had elected an American with an American last name like Sullivan or Jones. I guess Hawaii doesn't count.
Still can't find any definitive answer to Ukraine being an ally or a trading partner of ours. Radio talk jocks admit that many of the other former satellites are now allies and members of the EU, but no mention of the Ukraine. So, that means we are in the position of defending a "potential" ally and trading partner so that our real allies and trading partners will feel more secure. Against a country that now finds itself hemmed in with potential anti-Russian countries. Wonder how we would feel about that.
Must we strut around like Mussolini and Putin to make our points and get our way? Does anyone question anything anymore? Does anyone understand this is not Hitler and Germany 80 years ago? Does anyone remember why Hitler became so popular? It was the severe economic devastation the allies forced on them after WWI that allowed a despot to rally their patriotism, rebuild their military and give themselves respect. You want to give Putin that role?
I don't know that there is an answer to all this bs. It certainly isn't going to come from Congress or this forum. But it will be resolved and those without conscience or morals will use this to get elected and punish us all.
Obama and Cameron's "look at me, I'm on the phone" photos trigger some funny responses:
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1709023.1393873241!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/obama-jeans-calling-russian-president-vladimir-putin.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh_WNdJCAAAN5A7.jpg)
And the Twitter responses started with Captan Picard himself:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh_0egjIYAAIioj.jpg)
"I'm now patched in as well. Sorry for the delay."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh_vphZCUAA7vYQ.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiABpQLCcAALHla.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh_sfEQCAAAj_Vs.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh_6BD1IIAE9IUw.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiBQAPHCMAA1Z9A.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiAsytECUAAmF1X.jpg)
Quote from: AquaMan on March 06, 2014, 10:26:50 AM
Does anyone understand this is not Hitler and Germany 80 years ago? Does anyone remember why Hitler became so popular?
Someone forgot to tell former Madame Secretary that.
QuoteAfter invoking Hitler at a private fundraiser Tuesday, Clinton largely stood by the remarks on Wednesday. She said she was merely noting parallels between Putin's claim that he was protecting Russian-speaking minorities in Crimea and Hitler's moves into Poland, Czechoslovakia and other parts of Europe to protect German minorities.
"I just want people to have a little historic perspective," Clinton said during a question-and-answer session at UCLA. "I'm not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before."
Clinton added that Putin's goal is "to re-Sovietize Russia's periphery" and said he is "a tough guy with a thin skin" — something she said she knows from personal dealings with him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clintons-putin-hitler-comments-draw-rebukes-as-she-wades-into-ukraine-conflict/2014/03/05/31a748d8-a486-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html
Quote from: Conan71 on March 06, 2014, 11:19:16 AM
Someone forgot to tell former Madame Secretary that.
QuoteShe said she was merely noting parallels between Putin's claim that he was protecting Russian-speaking minorities in Crimea and Hitler's moves into Poland, Czechoslovakia and other parts of Europe to protect German minorities.
Quote"I'm not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before."
Isn't drawing a parallel the same as making a comparison?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 06, 2014, 11:19:16 AM
Someone forgot to tell former Madame Secretary that.
She's exactly right.
Of course perhaps we shouldn't have been funding Ukrainian protesters to march against the Pro-Russian government and playing the same games that put us in other wars.
Funny thing is that when this story broke it was a big NYT article back on Feb 2nd.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/world/europe/ukraine.html
None of the networks seem to be interested in talking about it any more.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02/17/us-eu-paying-ukrainian-rioters-protesters-paul-craig-roberts/
http://www.infowars.com/us-and-eu-are-paying-ukrainian-rioters-and-protesters/
A leaked phone call originally published by NPR links the US, and another even more damning call links EU officials to the sniper killings last month.
http://nipr.fm/post/leaked-ukraine-phone-call-puts-us-credibility-line
http://www.infowars.com/leaked-phone-call-kiev-snipers-hired-by-us-backed-opposition/
So, perhaps it would be best if this administration did not play these games, because they are not very good at it. At least they're not blaming it on an internet video, yet.
We are square in the middle of this, yet we are pretending not to be.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/david-cameron-posted-a-picture-of-himself-on-the-phone-and-t
We're sending The USS Truxtun missile destroyer to the Black Sea on a "routine training mission."
http://news.yahoo.com/us-destroyer-en-route-black-sea-routine-drills-160237512.html;_ylt=AwrTWVXrnxhTIwcAxYLQtDMD
Bad news. Obama's vacation is in jeopardy.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obama-vacation-plans-vladimir-putin-russia-104319.html#ixzz2vCRpKa85
Quote from: guido911 on March 06, 2014, 12:22:25 PM
Bad news. Obama's vacation is in jeopardy.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obama-vacation-plans-vladimir-putin-russia-104319.html#ixzz2vCRpKa85
Oh smile!
I hope this doesn't threaten Michelle's scheduled vacation to China this month. The CBO hasn't scored this trip yet, but I'm willing to bet it comes in at just a little over $3 million dollars.
Hey wait a minute, isn't China allied with Russia on this whole invasion thing?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572615/Michelle-Obama-plans-pricey-trip-China-First-Family-criticized-spending-hundreds-millions-dollars-traveling-taxpayers-dime.html
^^^^^^^
OK, this is what I figure makes sense for the Forum's international politics threads. Pointless jibber jabber as opposed to the "I believe my opinions matter" jibber jabber.
Quote from: Townsend on March 06, 2014, 12:32:00 PM
^^^^^^^
OK, this is what I figure makes sense for the Forum's international politics threads. Pointless jibber jabber as opposed to the "I believe my opinions matter" jibber jabber.
You don't think it's odd that the first lady would choose to spend
american tax dollars her vacation dollars in a country that at this very moment is opposing our foreign policy?
I mean we understand how vacations are really really really important to the Obamas, but perhaps this would be a good time to divert those millions and millions of
our tax dollars Michelle's mad money to a country that is supportive of us.
I know. I know. That's crazy talk. It's
our their money and they are free to
waste spend it as they please.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 06, 2014, 12:43:49 PM
You don't think it's odd that the first lady would choose to spend american tax dollars her vacation dollars in a country that at this very moment is opposing our foreign policy?
I mean we understand how vacations are really really really important to the Obamas, but perhaps this would be a good time to divert those millions and millions of our tax dollars Michelle's mad money to a country that is supportive of us.
I know. I know. That's crazy talk. It's our their money and they are free to waste spend it as they please.
My point was the thread posts.
Posting non-serious blatherings like you're doing now makes much more sense than posting things as if they make a difference.
im confused Townsend...
Sorry for trying to intelligently discuss a topic that will have major implications globally and locally. I didn't think this was 4chan. Since when is being educated on a topic and expressing an opinion a bad thing? This entire thread you've ragged any post that actually addresses the issues.
Of course we aren't important. My opinion matters as far as my single vote can carry me. If you don't want to discuss Ukrainian politics, don't read the Ukrainian politics thread.
Back to meme posting...we will let the important people discuss important things. We will learn our station and cling t discussing the smaller things.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 06, 2014, 01:03:50 PM
im confused Townsend...
Sorry for trying to intelligently discuss a topic that will have major implications globally and locally. I didn't think this was 4chan. Since when is being educated on a topic and expressing an opinion a bad thing? This entire thread you've ragged any post that actually addresses the issues.
Of course we aren't important. My opinion matters as far as my single vote can carry me. If you don't want to discuss Ukrainian politics, don't read the Ukrainian politics thread.
Back to meme posting...we will let the important people discuss important things. We will learn our station and cling t discussing the smaller things.
Point taken. I was expressing an opinion.
OK then. :p
China has back off their support of Russia when the USA asked if the whole people should decide who governs them thing applied to Tibet (and Taiwan). They now feel the territorial integrity of the Ukraine must be respected.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0M30K720140306?irpc=932
Really excellent article on the issue by Henry Kissinger. Still as brilliant as ever!
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.
2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.
3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.
4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea's relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea's autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.
These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html
You guys are doing little intellectual discussion and a lot of politicizing. Opinions are one thing, but blurting out half truths, posting pics with captions and criticizing Democrats while ignoring everyone else's mistakes is not intellectual discussion.
A couple of points. Gas says Ukraine is an ally and a partner. Not true. Stop talking about what you don't know. From WiKi and NATO websites-
"The Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program aimed at creating trust between NATO and other states in Europe and the former Soviet Union; 22 states are members.[1] It was first discussed by the Bulgarian Society Novae, after proposed as an American initiative at the meeting of NATO defense ministers in Travemünde, Germany, on 20–21 October 1993, and formally launched on 10–11 January 1994 NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium"
NATO helps out with military and disaster preparedness programs. Lots of former satellites signed up for the program. Some later joined NATO, left and came back. Some joined 22 years ago and remain members. Must be assuring to nearby Russia. These "provisional" members may do business with NATO members but they are not partners either.
There is a huge difference between parallells with history, comparable to history and EXACTLY like history. Clinton understands that and made that point. What we gathered from the experience in 1930's Germany was what mattered, not the mechanics of the take-over. That was the manifestation of the disease, not its causes. The parallel she drew was political and was meant to do what Gas does with pics and spins.
Because of what we learned the UN and NATO came in to place. Today's world is vastly different in the Ukraine than Europe in the 30's. But wherever you find economic disaster you find the seeds of revolution and war.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 06, 2014, 01:41:20 PM
You guys are doing little intellectual discussion and a lot of politicizing. Opinions are one thing, but blurting out half truths, posting pics with captions and criticizing Democrats while ignoring everyone else's mistakes is not intellectual discussion.
A couple of points. Gas says Ukraine is an ally and a partner. Not true. Stop talking about what you don't know. From WiKi and NATO websites-
"The Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program aimed at creating trust between NATO and other states in Europe and the former Soviet Union; 22 states are members.[1] It was first discussed by the Bulgarian Society Novae, after proposed as an American initiative at the meeting of NATO defense ministers in Travemünde, Germany, on 20–21 October 1993, and formally launched on 10–11 January 1994 NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium"
NATO helps out with military and disaster preparedness programs. Lots of former satellites signed up for the program. Some later joined NATO, left and came back. Some joined 22 years ago and remain members. Must be assuring to nearby Russia. These "provisional" members may do business with NATO members but they are not partners either.
There is a huge difference between parallells with history, comparable to history and EXACTLY like history. Clinton understands that and made that point. What we gathered from the experience in 1930's Germany was what mattered, not the mechanics of the take-over. That was the manifestation of the disease, not its causes. The parallel she drew was political and was meant to do what Gas does with pics and spins.
Because of what we learned the UN and NATO came in to place. Today's world is vastly different in the Ukraine than Europe in the 30's. But wherever you find economic disaster you find the seeds of revolution and war.
I just want to know if anyone Godwinned Former Madame Secretary Clinton for that.
OK I'm sorry. But every time I hear Ukraine. This comes to mind. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii0YmKEu2dg
Aquaman:
- Ukraine participates with NATO forces in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO and the Ukraine have had a series of meeting about Ukraine joining. They are not a member and are not scheduled to be a member - but they do work closely with the US military. Additionally, the US has formally endorsed any Ukrainian bid to join NATO.
- The United States does $3-4 billion in trade with Ukraine every year. Enjoying a nearly $1bil trade surplus with Ukraine (that is, we export a billion more than we import).
- The US is viewed favorably by a majority of Ukrainians (though that went from 85% at the start of Bush II to 65% by the end), given the Russian population that's amazingly strong.
- Ukraine is a young democracy. The US almost always has strong ties with democracies.
- The US has written obligations to recognize and defend the Ukraine's territorial integrity.
- There are 800,000 ethnic Ukrainians in the US
So no. Ukraine is not a NATO member. But they are a friendly nation.
This is interesting:
President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm
QuoteClaims About Ukraine
President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 5, 2014
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare
As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, "The formula 'two times two equals five' is not without its attractions."
Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin's recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.
1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is "citizens' defense groups," not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.
The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.
2. Mr. Putin says: Russia's actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity. Russia's military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
3. Mr. Putin says: The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.
4. Mr. Putin says: Ukraine's government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.
The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych "has no political future." After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine's new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.
5. Mr. Putin says: There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.
The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.
6. Mr. Putin says: Ethnic Russians are under threat.
The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.
7. Mr. Putin says: Russian bases are under threat.
The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.
8. Mr. Putin says: There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.
The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine's church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.
9. Mr. Putin says: Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.
The Facts: Ukraine's interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.
10. Mr. Putin says: The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.
The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 06, 2014, 05:52:13 PM
Aquaman:
- Ukraine participates with NATO forces in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO and the Ukraine have had a series of meeting about Ukraine joining. They are not a member and are not scheduled to be a member - but they do work closely with the US military. Additionally, the US has formally endorsed any Ukrainian bid to join NATO.
- The United States does $3-4 billion in trade with Ukraine every year. Enjoying a nearly $1bil trade surplus with Ukraine (that is, we export a billion more than we import).
- The US is viewed favorably by a majority of Ukrainians (though that went from 85% at the start of Bush II to 65% by the end), given the Russian population that's amazingly strong.
- Ukraine is a young democracy. The US almost always has strong ties with democracies.
- The US has written obligations to recognize and defend the Ukraine's territorial integrity.
- There are 800,000 ethnic Ukrainians in the US
So no. Ukraine is not a NATO member. But they are a friendly nation.
That's exactly what the two websites I listed reported. And that's partly why Putin is skeptical. If you look at the map on the NATO website you'll notice that Russia is totally hemmed in on its western border with NATO members or PfP's. These countries are receiving aid, preferential trade and military assistance. All above board, legal and good for everyone. In fact Russia was part of the original agreements that set up the arrangement. This was started over two decades and three presidents ago. So its been a bi-partisan, multi-nation effort.
However, you might also add that the US has promised, along with EU members, to provide security for these countries. But this is not 1994 anymore. Putin suspects we are behind some of the revolutions, intrigue and rampant anti-Russian sentiment. That might be because he is a former KGB colonel and knows of past secretive operations of all the major players. Or it is more likely because Russian government sucks big time and their people now know they can do better.
I ask you. How would we feel about our bordering countries signing up with Socialist leaning organizations who have been promised favored trade and security arrangements? We didn't like it at all in Cuba. We aren't able to do much with Mexico and Latin America even when Reagan kicked them around. Panama kicked us out as well. Thank God for Canada! (even though they have those damn gun laws).
None of this was imparted in the previous pages in favor of distortion, spin, character attacks and outright untruths. An intelligent discussion is when facts are used, positions are defensible and words are carefully chosen, while innuendo, childish name calling and campaign style nastiness is absent. Or is that what passes for discussion with your generation?
Quote from: rebound on March 04, 2014, 09:14:45 AM
I get your post and agree with your general sentiment, but my Texan wife's family as well as my kids who were both born in TX, would probably take umbrage at including TX in with the other states. Texas won it's independence from Mexico own it's own. There was no support from the US military at the time. "Remember the Alamo!", and "Remember Goliad!" were Texian battle cries, not US. It then became an independent country for a while before aligning with and be annexed by the US. (Which did start another war, this time between the US and Mexico, but Texas was already independent by then.)
Details.... Texas had a "treaty" with Mexico that put the border hundreds of miles north of where it is today. On their own, they invaded and took over - they made a land grab and it worked out for them. At least until about 30 years ago, when the counter-invasion scaled up.
Smaller scale version of exactly what the US was doing in the rest of the country.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 06, 2014, 05:55:38 PM
This is interesting:
President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm
Anyone expecting truth to come out of this mess or Putin's mouth is ....expecting too much. What is that old phrase? "I like to find the truth but I'll settle for justice".
Quote from: guido911 on March 04, 2014, 04:13:57 PM
Are you serious? Palin has been all over this. Part of her "idiot" rap was her comment about Russia and the Ukraine from 2008--which turned out to be TRUE.
That's one of those "million monkeys with a million typewriters and you get a novel" moments - as she has proven conclusively over the last many years....
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 06, 2014, 01:18:59 PM
OK then. :p
China has back off their support of Russia when the USA asked if the whole people should decide who governs them thing applied to Tibet (and Taiwan). They now feel the territorial integrity of the Ukraine must be respected.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0M30K720140306?irpc=932
Ok, Conan. I get to do a "toldjaso".
Seven pages ago...."Sometimes, standing back and taking a deep breath is critical to good decision making. Putin has made his play. If he is in fact in charge he may have played a bad hand. If its the crazies and the military then few solutions are available.
China is as key as our allies.And didn't I read that Obama is sending someone over to China...on vacation or something. Yeah, just a vacation, really.
Quote from: guido911 on March 05, 2014, 05:58:42 PM
Sheesh. Here's a newscaster making it all about herself. Click the video for maximum self-absorption.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/03/05/rt-anchor-quits-on-air.html
Like anyone who works for RT doesn't know what it is...? Hey, employees of RT - it's spelled M O U T H P I E C E !!
Very elementary English, actually, not sure why anyone would have any doubt..??
Quote from: Gaspar on March 06, 2014, 12:43:49 PM
You don't think it's odd that the first lady would choose to spend american tax dollars her vacation dollars in a country that at this very moment is opposing our foreign policy?
I mean we understand how vacations are really really really important to the Obamas, but perhaps this would be a good time to divert those millions and millions of our tax dollars Michelle's mad money to a country that is supportive of us.
I know. I know. That's crazy talk. It's our their money and they are free to waste spend it as they please.
And what has your and your company's position been about supporting China at any time during the last 30 years or so...?
Buy from a Chinese company? Chinese software? Anything else from a Chinese source?
But hey....what's consistency got to do with it....?
(http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.boston.barstoolsports.com/files/2011/05/seinfeld_risk_ukraine_kramer_newman_01.jpg)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2014, 08:25:50 PM
And what has your and your company's position been about supporting China at any time during the last 30 years or so...?
Buy from a Chinese company? Chinese software? Anything else from a Chinese source?
But hey....what's consistency got to do with it....?
There is such a thing as Chinese software? We don't have that many keys on our keyboards.
(http://resource.mmgn.com/Gallery/full/Chinese-Keyboard-1041428.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 04, 2014, 08:21:50 AM
Unfortunately fence-sitting hurt us. Putin has the best hand currently because he knows Obama is going to waver like a reed, and confront this with rhetoric instead of action.
How does this differ from the President Bush response when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008? It looks the same to me.
This comes from the NY Times...
James F. Jeffrey was Mr. Bush's deputy national security adviser in August 2008, the first to inform him that Russian troops were moving into Georgia in response to what the Kremlin called Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. As it happened, the clash also took place at Olympic time; Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin were both in Beijing for the Summer Games.
Mr. Bush confronted Mr. Putin to no avail, then ordered American ships to the region and provided a military transport to return home Georgian troops on duty in Iraq. He sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft, assuming that Russia would be loath to attack the capital of Tbilisi with American military personnel present. Mr. Bush also suspended a pending civilian nuclear agreement, and NATO suspended military contacts.
"We did a lot but in the end there was not that much that you could do," Mr. Jeffrey recalled.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/russia-to-pay-not-so-simple.html?_r=1
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 07, 2014, 08:34:37 AM
How does this differ from the President Bush response when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008? It looks the same to me.
This comes from the NY Times...
James F. Jeffrey was Mr. Bush's deputy national security adviser in August 2008, the first to inform him that Russian troops were moving into Georgia in response to what the Kremlin called Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. As it happened, the clash also took place at Olympic time; Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin were both in Beijing for the Summer Games.
Mr. Bush confronted Mr. Putin to no avail, then ordered American ships to the region and provided a military transport to return home Georgian troops on duty in Iraq. He sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft, assuming that Russia would be loath to attack the capital of Tbilisi with American military personnel present. Mr. Bush also suspended a pending civilian nuclear agreement, and NATO suspended military contacts.
"We did a lot but in the end there was not that much that you could do," Mr. Jeffrey recalled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/russia-to-pay-not-so-simple.html?_r=1
It's exactly the same!
That's what I was thinking.
If the conservative President Bush and the liberal President Obama agree that this action/inaction is the best strategy, I feel that they must know something we don't. Maybe we shouldn't be so critical.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 07, 2014, 09:03:11 AM
That's what I was thinking.
If the conservative President Bush and the liberal President Obama agree that this action/inaction is the best strategy, I feel that they must know something we don't. Maybe we shouldn't be so critical.
Or perhaps they both exhibit feckless foreign policy skills and therefore we should be critical?
There is always this rush among the Obama apologists to say "well Bush did it" like that is some kind of free pass for poor leadership. This country is better than that, and our leaders should be held accountable regardless and in the face of past mistakes.
. . .and actually we should have learned from Georgia, Syria, Iran that you do not trust Putin. The juvenile gift of a "Reset" button (that actually said "Overloaded") does not fix an egotistical KGB monster who morns the fall of the Soviet Union.
(http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Putin-Lines-590-LI.jpg)
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security advisor is pumping Hillary.
"Hillary Clinton was right in historically comparing Putin's use of force to seize Crimea to Hitler's use of force in seizing the Sudetenland"
As predicted, she is going to come out looking like the strong leader on this, and build a stronger case for her candidacy.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5469/9137749838_756825e136_n.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 07, 2014, 09:23:41 AM
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security advisor is pumping Hillary.
(http://kanemckeown.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/kmblog12-00061.jpg)
You have to admit, RM, using Bush II as a bellwether on foreign policy is pretty hysterical.
Putin has just decided to ignore the silly US president now.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304554004579422624182460570?mod=%3C%25mst.param(LINKMODPREFIX)&mg=reno64-wsj
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rj57RZjfGQQ/TqiKnWsYNJI/AAAAAAAAFkU/g-ZQiGCHGA8/s1600/young-barack-obama-silly.jpg)
First came plan A: Get Yanukovych, a leader based in the east, to sign an EU trade agreement that would set a united Ukraine on a westward path. Putin disrupted that plan by getting Yanukovych to switch and go east.
Then came Plan B: When unrest swept Kiev and Yanukovych's government reacted with blind and brutal thuggishness, western diplomats decided to help the protestors replace the Yanukovych regime with a new government that could unite the country and bring it toward the West. That plan failed when Russia took advantage of the chaos in Ukraine to occupy Crimea and demonstrate its ability to threaten the east.
Plan C, which Putin shot down in the last 24 hours, was apparently based on the hope among some policy makers that a confused and misguided President Putin had made a dreadful blunder in Crimea. The plan was to offer the poor, trapped Russians a graceful way out of their predicament that would ultimately restore Ukrainian unity as the country moved West. The plan collapsed when Lavrov blew off the West and refused to even meet with Ukraine's foreign minister and now the Russians are kicking the fragments to bits as the Crimean regional authorities announce plans for a referendum on annexation by Russia.
Putin cares much less than many westerners seem to think about any sanctions that the West is likely to impose. Russia isn't part of the West and things work differently there. Western commentators pointed breathlessly to large declines in Russian stock markets after the invasion, for example, to show how Putin must be feeling the errors of his ways.
Not really; Putin does not worry nearly as much about the Russian stock market as western leaders worry about financial markets in their own countries. Putin broke the oligarchs as a political force years ago; in Russia, corporations exist to serve the state and not the other way round. He is not worried that business leaders will lose confidence in him; in Putin's Russia, it is business leaders who worry about losing the trust of the country's political master.
As for banking crackdowns and visa limits, it will help Putin, not hurt him, if powerful Russians are unable to leave the country or move their money around in the West. One of his worries is that various oligarchs and power brokers can put enough money in the west to be able to get out from under his thumb. He would like all of his backers to be dependent on him for continued enjoyment of wealth and property. If the West wants to fence his backers in, so be it. (If the west goes after Putin's own golden horde of ill-gotten simoleons, estimated by many to be north of $50 billion, the calculation might change.)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/03/06/russia-blows-past-obamas-off-ramp/
Your genius goes largely unrecognized. Thankfully.
So, we can do nothing. Putin holds all the cards because of his (non-feckless) Hun like personality. Obama screwed up for a multitude of reasons. He's just Obama 'nuf said. Bush did too. Ms. Clinton is also a genius for having read and recognized patterns in history. She is backed up by a former (dare I say it) Carter appointee. Yet their solutions are no different than currently offered. Kissinger is outstanding for saying the obvious which can't be accomplished because of Putin outrageous ability to manipulate the rest of the world.
Bottom line is, no one can do anything about this 22 year festering assault on our best laid plans to surround Russia with democracy in the hopes of changing their political culture. No one has any solutions other than what has been offered, dismissed as useless or trampled upon by the Ogre Putin.
If only. If only we had someone like Romney. Or Cruz. Or Ryan. Or those Paul guys. They must also be hiding their genius.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 07, 2014, 10:24:29 AM
Your genius goes largely unrecognized. Thankfully.
I recognize your genius. ;D
Quote from: Gaspar on March 07, 2014, 10:35:40 AM
I recognize your genius. ;D
Seriously, my genius is in keeping my home and family intact in the face of declining income and changing physical attributes. Getting old sucks. Regardless of our differing views, you folks keep my synapses firing.
The most interesting remark I heard today was that Russia simply has more interest in the Ukraine than the US or Europe. They view the area as critically important to them. Why anyone would want Crimea to be separate is confusing. They depend on the rest of the country for basic power and water.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 07, 2014, 09:23:41 AM
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security advisor is pumping Hillary.
"Hillary Clinton was right in historically comparing Putin's use of force to seize Crimea to Hitler's use of force in seizing the Sudetenland"
As predicted, she is going to come out looking like the strong leader on this, and build a stronger case for her candidacy.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5469/9137749838_756825e136_n.jpg)
Why is Ms. Clinton talking now? When she had the job as SOS, and was asked questions on Benghazi she didn't have much to say then did she? As a matter of fact, she appeared quite sheepish and lame, clearly not one of her better moments. Moreover, she immediately quit because she senses a lot of time will be needed to work through all of her issues that she'll undoubtedly need to address when she campaigns once again.
She can call the leader of a major power a Nazi or anything else that she wants from where she stands now. But President Obama is smart enough to know that in the role of POTUS this is classless and would definitely jeopardize or severely stalemate already tense negotiations. Would Ms. Clinton be that stupid to make the same remark if she were President? She's smarter than that.
One of President Obama's leadership style elements is that he is more cerebral than emotional and hostile. Fist pounding and name calling may satisfy some, but such tactics can't lead to a more satisfactory and expeditious resolution of a crisis of this scope and magnitude.
For all of President Obama's critics, I'd like to see any past leaders or present hopefuls manage this crisis any better. BEFORE YOU ANSWER, make sure you have them operating within the same context of the bottom feeding level of discourse and classlessness that now firmly characterizes the legislative branch, and do not forget to include the backdrop of the millions of (blog hog, social media whoring, and greedy rich self-serving talk show host) citizens whose daily existence is hell bent on trying to orchestrate that individual's total destruction. Yes, that is what whomever succeeds the current POTUS will need to deal with as well. To that point, I see nothing but thin skin out there among the hopefuls, and seriously wonder if any can hold up under the madness.
Huffpoo is claiming 30,000 Russian troops have moved into Crimea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
Me thinks that's an awful lot of soldiers for just Crimea.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on March 07, 2014, 01:16:10 PM
Why is Ms. Clinton talking now? When she had the job as SOS, and was asked questions on Benghazi she didn't have much to say then did she? As a matter of fact, she appeared quite sheepish and lame, clearly not one of her better moments. Moreover, she immediately quit because she senses a lot of time will be needed to work through all of her issues that she'll undoubtedly need to address when she campaigns once again.
She can call the leader of a major power a Nazi or anything else that she wants from where she stands now. But President Obama is smart enough to know that in the role of POTUS this is classless and would definitely jeopardize or severely stalemate already tense negotiations. Would Ms. Clinton be that stupid to make the same remark if she were President? She's smarter than that.
One of President Obama's leadership style elements is that he is more cerebral than emotional and hostile. Fist pounding and name calling may satisfy some, but such tactics can't lead to a more satisfactory and expeditious resolution of a crisis of this scope and magnitude.
For all of President Obama's critics, I'd like to see any past leaders or present hopefuls manage this crisis any better. BEFORE YOU ANSWER, make sure you have them operating within the same context of the bottom feeding level of discourse and classlessness that now firmly characterizes the legislative branch, and do not forget to include the backdrop of the millions of (blog hog, social media whoring, and greedy rich self-serving talk show host) citizens whose daily existence is hell bent on trying to orchestrate that individual's total destruction. Yes, that is what whomever succeeds the current POTUS will need to deal with as well. To that point, I see nothing but thin skin out there among the hopefuls, and seriously wonder if any can hold up under the madness.
It's her "The Gathering Storm" moment, and simply a warning shot over the bow to judge response. . . and the response was indeed positive.
She is extremely cunning. We will hear more from her on this subject, and I wouldn't' be surprised if she becomes critical of the current administration and uses Obama's poor approval combined with her criticism as a wave to ride into the election.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 07, 2014, 01:26:01 PM
Huffpoo is claiming 30,000 Russian troops have moved into Crimea.
Me thinks that's an awful lot of soldiers for just Crimea.
Must have created quite a housing boom!
Quote from: Conan71 on March 07, 2014, 01:39:06 PM
Must have created quite a housing boom!
I have a feeling they intend relocate into the suburbs of the Ukraine.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 07, 2014, 01:36:25 PM
She is extremely cunning. We will hear more from her on this subject, and I wouldn't' be surprised if she becomes critical of the current administration and uses Obama's poor approval combined with her criticism as a wave to ride into the election.
If she attempts criticism, it would be her undoing. Benghazi is tatooed all over her. Besisdes she doesn't have to resort to such ill advised tactics to win. If she wanted to be a hero, she could be doing what Kerry is trying to do now had she not quit when she felt a bit of steam from the heat. Her critics have already pointed out that since she couldn't handle Benghazi, then she's probably not capable of dealing with more serious foreign matters.
And THIS is why Russia should never host another Olympics. Every time they do they invade someone.
Seriously, Putin has ZERO integrity. He cast off the treaty he helped negotiate guaranteeing Ukraine's territory. His propaganda machine is laughable to anyone without governmental filters. His excuses are pathetic (not Russian troops, just locals who bought full combat gear, automatic weapons, and mobile artillery at a surplus store). He needs to be exposed.
I don't believe Putin holds all the cards. I believe trying SO hard to act in your personal interest, look tough, and put on the guise of "helping" has to leave you exposed. He definately took the initiative - but it is his boarder so one would expect as much. Surely we can make some plays.
Can we agree that an independence vote while occupied by a foreign nation is a farce?
By way of developments:
Russian forces have taken over boarded crossings, occupied a command center, and kicked Ukrainian families out of military housing. The Russian navy has blockaded the ports and refused to let Ukrainian naval vessels come or go.
Russia still denies having troops in the Crimea in spite of photographs of Russian troops...
Russia has refused entry to European observers (cooperation in Europe) and said UN observers are not needed.
Gazprom (partially owned by Putin) has threatened to shutoff gas.
Obama has ordered asset freezes on Russian government officials deemed responsible (funny how many Russian governmental employees have billions of dollars).
Russia has said they will seize US corporate assets and not pay back US banks (the US has replied that Russians have more assets at risk controlled by US financial institutions and amy tit for tat ends badly for Russia)
In a 2013 poll of the Crimea - 29% of people wanted to join Russia.
Putin better have some quality food tasters on staff and a good line on where Stalin's bullet proof sofa ended up.
From SNL.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/snls-obama-and-liam-neeson-stand-up-to-putin-with-explosions-and-shirtless-horsebacking/
Diplomacy apparently is failing and at this point Crimea is very unlikely to remain independent. Hopefully there is still hope for the surrounding region, and we can show leadership in restraining Putin from further advance.
Unfortunately I think the president may have missed an excellent opportunity this weekend. The surrogate diplomacy system through SS John Kerry has all but fallen appart, therefore it is necessary for direct diplomacy, much like what Reagan employed with Gorbachov.
(http://www.henrymakow.com/Reagan_Gorbachev.jpg)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02592/Obama-Putin1_2592981b.jpg)
This past weekend the president had an excellent opportunity to invite Putin to talk, away from the noise of politics, and out of the reach of media microphones and cameras.
Obama could have invited Putin (a very athletic man) to join him on the golf course. The situation and security would have been perfect for such a mission, as that the President had already reserved Key West's Ocean Reef Club for his golf weekend and had, 5 Secret Service helicopters and 57 Secret Service agents securing the course during his multi-million dollar get-away.
(https://www.oceanreef.com/_filelib/ImageGallery/Design2/subimg2b.jpg)
(http://www.golfmiami.com/courses/image/preview/12884.jpg)
(http://media.vogue.com/files/filecheck/2011/02/22/1-OceanReef_141123347691.jpg_article_singleimage.jpg)
What better way to exemplify American Exceptionalism than to treat the tired overworked Putin to some golf and a few rounds of American Skyy Vodka at one of the countries most exclusive and expensive golf courses?
The leaders could discuss his actions in Crimea and his plans for the rest of the Ukraine, and this would give Putin an opportunity to meet, and perhaps even get some autographs from Ahmad Rashad, Cyrus Walker and Alonzo Mourning (Obama's scheduled golf partners). Or, instead of rounding out the foursome with American sports royalty, the president could have invited Angola Merkel and David Cameron who both enjoy golf, to join them.
(http://tnt24.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013-06-17T163022Z_2042804820_GM1E96I01CC01_RTRMADP_3_G8-590x382.jpg)
I think this would be a very attractive proposal for Putin, especially during a time when the Russian golf courses are on winter rules, and are likely used for weapons testing.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7360/13058876574_0751cfd0c3.jpg)
I'm sure that there are reasons why such a diplomatic mission was not considered. It may be that Ahmad has already booked a non-refundable ticket on SouthWest or something. I just think that perhaps the president could share his greatest passion and pastime with more than just Hollywood and sports celebrities. My father always told me that "If you enjoy what you do, you never work a day in your life." I'm glad president Obama has found such a passion, I just wish he could put it to productive use.
I like your new style. A bit more subtle and refined. Same obsession with O's vacations but its a fair target.
NPR had an interesting commenter this morning who referred to Putin's plan to make a Euro-Asian compact to compete with the EU.He's staked his credibility in Russia on the plan. Ukraine is key to that plan. He says Putin tried to peacefully win over the Ukraine, and thought he had, but felt like the overthrow was a ruse put on by American & NATO interests to thwart his plans for a competitive alternative to the EU. That wouldn't surprise me after watching our past covert activities.
So basically both sides feel like they've been screwed and aren't seeing the event in the same way. Hard to communicate when you can't even agree on what you just saw.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 10, 2014, 10:03:20 AM
I like your new style. A bit more subtle and refined. Same obsession with O's vacations but its a fair target.
Initially focusing on the whole golf thing was all just tongue-in-cheek, because no one really believed that a president would flaunt such activity at the expense of the taxpayer during times when people around the world were looking to him as a leader, but he did. . .again. . .and again.
Now holy smile, look at the optics today. I really don't care if Obama wants to fly around and play golf with celebrities. It's a major part of his fundraising, and he's not ashamed of it. I get that. I also understand that people in his position deserve a release, but during times of international, economic, or environmental crisis, he may want to tone it down a bit, or at least use it, like many business people, and past presidents do, as a tool to bring folks to the table.
People used to get down on Bush for flying off to his ranch as a retreat, but he used it to pull world leaders out of the spotlight and spend quality time with them. Blair, the Saudi Crown Prince, Howard, Koizumi, Berlusconi, Chinese Prez Zimen, Mexican prez Fox, Egyptian Prez Mubarak Hell, Bush even had Putin to the ranch, ate chicken-fried steaks, drove around in his pick-up and cut some lumber.
(http://www.september11news.com/Nov14BushPutinTruck.jpg)
The least Obama could do is invite him to the country club, whack some balls, ride a bike, and sip some fancy beer. Even if it accomplishes nothing as far as Putin is concerned, it accomplishes a lot in the eyes of the world, as symbolizing a leader willing to work out disagreements face to face. It makes him look like an American President.
That brings back a popular image of St. Ronald:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GO0uBC4rpFA/UbSEB5YloSI/AAAAAAAAYAU/P7tOlgQi84E/s1600/Ronald-Reagan-Rolex-Ranch-1983.jpg)
(http://coacheshotseat.com/coacheshotseatblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RonaldReagan7.jpg)
I have no idea if those images were captured while he was doing real work on his ranch or if he came in after the minions had piled up the wood. Bush was frequently photographed on his ranch working the land. Again, who really knows if he was working it or simply stepping in for the photo-op.
It's a matter of the image a president or his handlers wish to impart on people.
Certainly photo ops with the down-trodden or an American hero aren't as much about compassion or interest for whomever the person is in the photo with the president rather than an attempt to show the president "cares".
President Obama tends to portray the image of a slacker who is more interested in expensive resorts and playing golf. That's fine if that is the image he wants to project, but it's an odd image a president would want to cultivate with record numbers of Americans on food stamps and out of work. He seems to have unfortunate timing of taking his junkets while there are either major foreign policy issues to be settled or budgetary/economic policy issues hanging in the balance back in DC. He makes himself an easy target for criticism. I assume he has really thick skin. Either that or he's a narcissistic sociopath. :o
To some people its all about appearance. I suspect its the emphasis on marketing during the last few decades.
You know which president had the worst reputation for playing golf even during crises? Eisenhower. It never ends.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 10, 2014, 01:03:24 PM
To some people its all about appearance. I suspect its the emphasis on marketing during the last few decades.
You know which president had the worst reputation for playing golf even during crises? Eisenhower. It never ends.
I wonder how many photos existed of Ike playing golf?
Of course one of the more notable cases of presidential image (and maybe this is where it started) was FDR never or rarely being photographed in his wheelchair.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 10, 2014, 01:21:44 PM
I wonder how many photos existed of Ike playing golf?
Of course one of the more notable cases of presidential image (and maybe this is where it started) was FDR never or rarely being photographed in his wheelchair.
Most of that has to do with the lack of a 24 hour news cycle in the 30s/40s/50s like there is today. Can you imagine the outcry had the internet been available to depict a polio-stricken president? How would the media have treated Kennedy had that been Fox News breaking the story about his relationship with Marilyn Monroe.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 10, 2014, 01:21:44 PM
I wonder how many photos existed of Ike playing golf?
Of course one of the more notable cases of presidential image (and maybe this is where it started) was FDR never or rarely being photographed in his wheelchair.
Ike playing golf....
https://www.google.com/search?q=ike+playing+golf&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=ZEm&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=pwgeU9aqMK6ayQH9poDoBA&ved=0CCYQsAQ&biw=1133&bih=619
Quote from: Hoss on March 10, 2014, 01:45:54 PM
Most of that has to do with the lack of a 24 hour news cycle in the 30s/40s/50s like there is today. Can you imagine the outcry had the internet been available to depict a polio-stricken president? How would the media have treated Kennedy had that been Fox News breaking the story about his relationship with Marilyn Monroe.
He had a relationship with Marilyn Monroe?
(http://thegentlemanblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/kirk_surprise.jpg)
Quote from: AquaMan on March 10, 2014, 01:03:24 PM
To some people its all about appearance. I suspect its the emphasis on marketing during the last few decades.
You know which president had the worst reputation for playing golf even during crises? Eisenhower. It never ends.
Anyone who says marketing is not important is a fool.
Especially when you have a record like Obama's, marketing should be everything, because that's all that is left.
I have little doubt the EU encouraged or supported the opposition to protest the rejection of the trade deal. Less so for the USA (a third party). But the EU and USAs lack of significant involvement is evident in our lack of a follow up plan. Plus - at the end of the discussion, one country has militarily occupied another. And it isn't EU or US troops...
On the 24 hour news cycle...
I think that has somewhat died. Whenever I try to find news on TV all I find is fluff, talking heads, or some quasi documentary show. CNN, in particular, used to be JUST NEWS. You could flip it on 24 hours a day and in a 1 hour cycle pretty well know what's up in the world. Now, I don't know what's on.
MSN is the prison network. Fox is all blabbering talking heads. If I wanted fake outrage and kind-of-news with a slany I'd watch the Daily Show - which at least admits it isn't a real news show. Not sure any of the three news networks have "news" anymore.
I don't get the channel, but someone told me Al Jazeera America is just news. No reality shows. No talking head shows. Wth? We need Al Jazeera to get it right?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 10, 2014, 02:37:47 PM
I have little doubt the EU encouraged or supported the opposition to protest the rejection of the trade deal. Less so for the USA (a third party). But the EU and USAs lack of significant involvement is evident in our lack of a follow up plan. Plus - at the end of the discussion, one country has militarily occupied another. And it isn't EU or US troops...
On the 24 hour news cycle...
I think that has somewhat died. Whenever I try to find news on TV all I find is fluff, talking heads, or some quasi documentary show. CNN, in particular, used to be JUST NEWS. You could flip it on 24 hours a day and in a 1 hour cycle pretty well know what's up in the world. Now, I don't know what's on.
MSN is the prison network. Fox is all blabbering talking heads. If I wanted fake outrage and kind-of-news with a slany I'd watch the Daily Show - which at least admits it isn't a real news show. Not sure any of the three news networks have "news" anymore.
I don't get the channel, but someone told me Al Jazeera America is just news. No reality shows. No talking head shows. Wth? We need Al Jazeera to get it right?
BBC News does a fairly good job, and CBS has been trying hard to fill in the blanks by actually reporting, but you are right, all of the "NEWS" channels have gone the way of MTV.
"NEWS" is such a restrictive format for them.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 10, 2014, 08:05:46 AM
Diplomacy apparently is failing and at this point Crimea is very unlikely to remain independent. Hopefully there is still hope for the surrounding region, and we can show leadership in restraining Putin from further advance.
Unfortunately I think the president may have missed an excellent opportunity this weekend. The surrogate diplomacy system through SS John Kerry has all but fallen appart, therefore it is necessary for direct diplomacy, much like what Reagan employed with Gorbachov.
(http://www.henrymakow.com/Reagan_Gorbachev.jpg)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02592/Obama-Putin1_2592981b.jpg)
This past weekend the president had an excellent opportunity to invite Putin to talk, away from the noise of politics, and out of the reach of media microphones and cameras.
Obama could have invited Putin (a very athletic man) to join him on the golf course. The situation and security would have been perfect for such a mission, as that the President had already reserved Key West's Ocean Reef Club for his golf weekend and had, 5 Secret Service helicopters and 57 Secret Service agents securing the course during his multi-million dollar get-away.
(https://www.oceanreef.com/_filelib/ImageGallery/Design2/subimg2b.jpg)
(http://www.golfmiami.com/courses/image/preview/12884.jpg)
(http://media.vogue.com/files/filecheck/2011/02/22/1-OceanReef_141123347691.jpg_article_singleimage.jpg)
What better way to exemplify American Exceptionalism than to treat the tired overworked Putin to some golf and a few rounds of American Skyy Vodka at one of the countries most exclusive and expensive golf courses?
The leaders could discuss his actions in Crimea and his plans for the rest of the Ukraine, and this would give Putin an opportunity to meet, and perhaps even get some autographs from Ahmad Rashad, Cyrus Walker and Alonzo Mourning (Obama's scheduled golf partners). Or, instead of rounding out the foursome with American sports royalty, the president could have invited Angola Merkel and David Cameron who both enjoy golf, to join them.
(http://tnt24.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013-06-17T163022Z_2042804820_GM1E96I01CC01_RTRMADP_3_G8-590x382.jpg)
I think this would be a very attractive proposal for Putin, especially during a time when the Russian golf courses are on winter rules, and are likely used for weapons testing.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7360/13058876574_0751cfd0c3.jpg)
I'm sure that there are reasons why such a diplomatic mission was not considered. It may be that Ahmad has already booked a non-refundable ticket on SouthWest or something. I just think that perhaps the president could share his greatest passion and pastime with more than just Hollywood and sports celebrities. My father always told me that "If you enjoy what you do, you never work a day in your life." I'm glad president Obama has found such a passion, I just wish he could put it to productive use.
Hilarious, we all know if the president had done any one of these things that you suggested here (before you ranted about them), you would have gone off on him for doing so. Right?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 10, 2014, 11:27:21 AM
That brings back a popular image of St. Ronald:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GO0uBC4rpFA/UbSEB5YloSI/AAAAAAAAYAU/P7tOlgQi84E/s1600/Ronald-Reagan-Rolex-Ranch-1983.jpg)
(http://coacheshotseat.com/coacheshotseatblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RonaldReagan7.jpg)
I have no idea if those images were captured while he was doing real work on his ranch or if he came in after the minions had piled up the wood. Bush was frequently photographed on his ranch working the land. Again, who really knows if he was working it or simply stepping in for the photo-op.
It's a matter of the image a president or his handlers wish to impart on people.
Certainly photo ops with the down-trodden or an American hero aren't as much about compassion or interest for whomever the person is in the photo with the president rather than an attempt to show the president "cares".
President Obama tends to portray the image of a slacker who is more interested in expensive resorts and playing golf. That's fine if that is the image he wants to project, but it's an odd image a president would want to cultivate with record numbers of Americans on food stamps and out of work. He seems to have unfortunate timing of taking his junkets while there are either major foreign policy issues to be settled or budgetary/economic policy issues hanging in the balance back in DC. He makes himself an easy target for criticism. I assume he has really thick skin. Either that or he's a narcissistic sociopath. :o
Ronnie rocking mom jeans?
Quote from: Rookie Okie on March 10, 2014, 04:51:00 PM
Ronnie rocking mom jeans?
Your mom must have been a strong woman.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 10, 2014, 08:02:52 PM
Your mom must have been a strong woman.
Her inner strength was among many of her great virtues. She also looked great in everything she wore. Can't say the same about the wrinkled up a$$ed fossil in these pictures. Any fool can see that this as the phony grade D actor he was trying desperately to portray a wholesome image that Hollyweird Ron was not. The toughest thing about him was that cowhide skin.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 10, 2014, 08:02:52 PM
Your mom must have been a strong woman.
Somewhere underneath is our rookie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kktJJSBQE
Quote from: guido911 on March 10, 2014, 09:23:11 PM
Somewhere underneath is our rookie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kktJJSBQE
Ouch!
Quote from: nathanm on March 04, 2014, 07:52:11 PM
Russia proper also borders the Black Sea. The Black Sea Fleet is based in Crimea for historical reasons. Plans were to move it before 2042 when the current lease expires anyway. It also has coastlines on the Baltic Sea, the Arctic Sea, and the Pacific Ocean. They are not land-locked by any means, with or without Ukraine.
Taking over Crimea does conveniently bring a planned gas pipeline under complete Russian control, however. Perhaps Putin doesn't want gas from Georgia to have a way around Russia to Europe?
Yes Russia does border other bodies of water, but it's the naval base at Sevastopol that was/is home to the Soviet/Russian Black Sea Fleet that Putin wants. If he loses Crimea and to a greater extent the Ukraine, it leaves St. Petersburg as the main naval port that doesn't freeze over, or borders with Japan, Korea, and China. Russia has already lost the naval bases in Albania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Crimea and Ukraine are the last major strong holds for the Russian Navy. I suppose that you could also include Murmansk, Leninskiy, Roslyakovo, Severomorsk, and Polyarny that lead to the Arctic Ocean, but those were/are predominantly home to their submarine fleet, because they can come and go underneath the ice pack of the Arctic.
Yes, Russia borders the Barents Sea, Kara Sea, East Siberian Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. It would be like the US Navy PAC Fleet and ATL Fleet having the bulk of their ships stationed in the Artic Ocean, Baffin Bay and the Greenland Sea. Soviet/Russia and the US in the middle of the polar ice cap, while the rest of the world below the Arctic Circle and above the equator did nothing, and just went "Oh well, that's what we should be."
One of my favorites where international crises and Russia is involved:
Quote from: guido911 on March 11, 2014, 06:25:17 PM
One of my favorites where international crises and Russia is involved:
Nuke 'em!! We haven't had a frivolous, unfunded, hugely painful from casualties, massively expensive war to run the debt up by a factor of 4 in a long time! And it would eliminate all the uncertainty over what they might do next...!
It will let us reminisce about the "good ole Bush days!"
Russia is massing forces at the Ukraine borders and has downed one of our drones.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-intercepted-us-drone-over-crimea-arms-180430584.html;_ylt=At_B0i8Ttqvgrn8ZH8ESDpzQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsdmNodWplBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNzcg--
It looks like Russia is getting ready to deal with the "consequences"
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/51c55c1a-ab8c-11e3-aad9-00144feab7de.html#axzz2vxqUM2as
This in the wake of SS Kerry's limp wristed denouncements today. What a horrible choice for Secretary of State. At least this ensures that he will never be a viable candidate for president again.
JOHN KERRY: "We hope President Putin will recognize that none of what we're saying is meant as a threat, it's not meant in a personal way."
(http://jarkesypolitical.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/kerry.jpg)
Vladimir "I have no intentions of intervening in Eastern Ukraine" Putin has occupied a town in eastern Ukraine. A small town one step removed from Crimea it gives him control of access points to Crimea as well as a natural gas dstributino center.
Observers have said Pro-Ukrainian voters have been turned away from the polls (that is, if you show up with Russian flag you will get in, if you show up with a Ukrainian flag you will be turned away). Russian Soldiers Completly homegrown defense forces are manning checkpoints to and at polling stations.
Russia proganda is as bad as North Korean propoganda. Go youtube it: "Nazis in the streets! Hundreds of Russians killed as the Ukraine continues their agression in Crimea!" All with soviet music and images of nazis on the screen as they read the "news." The same stuff we look at from North Korea or from WWII era and laugh.
Tens of thousands of Russians protested in Moscow yesterday against intervening in the Crimea.
This ends badly. Either we wuss out and do nothing, which starts the timer before the next "ethnically russian" country needs "help" from Tsar Putin. Or we go to war: policial, economic or as a proxy.
I say this crap doesn't stand. When you allow bully's to get away with it, they get more bold. When you let terrorists get what they want, they do it again. We will end up just paying more later.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 16, 2014, 12:31:01 PM
Vladimir "I have no intentions of intervening in Eastern Ukraine" Putin has occupied a town in eastern Ukraine. A small town one step removed from Crimea it gives him control of access points to Crimea as well as a natural gas dstributino center.
Observers have said Pro-Ukrainian voters have been turned away from the polls (that is, if you show up with Russian flag you will get in, if you show up with a Ukrainian flag you will be turned away). Russian Soldiers Completly homegrown defense forces are manning checkpoints to and at polling stations.
Russia proganda is as bad as North Korean propoganda. Go youtube it: "Nazis in the streets! Hundreds of Russians killed as the Ukraine continues their agression in Crimea!" All with soviet music and images of nazis on the screen as they read the "news." The same stuff we look at from North Korea or from WWII era and laugh.
Tens of thousands of Russians protested in Moscow yesterday against intervening in the Crimea.
This ends badly. Either we wuss out and do nothing, which starts the timer before the next "ethnically russian" country needs "help" from Tsar Putin. Or we go to war: policial, economic or as a proxy.
I say this crap doesn't stand. When you allow bully's to get away with it, they get more bold. When you let terrorists get what they want, they do it again. We will end up just paying more later.
So...are you saying Obama has no spine? Didn't see that coming, did we?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 16, 2014, 07:18:56 PM
So...are you saying Obama has no spine? Didn't see that coming, did we?
No. Obama has steel in his spine...
Quote from: guido911 on March 16, 2014, 07:42:40 PM
No. Obama has steel in his spine...
Did he have a spinal injury he is keeping out the the public eye?
I know some folks with steel in their spines. Mostly stainless steel.
;D
John Kerry Poses As Masseuse To Get Few Minutes With Putin
(http://o.onionstatic.com/images/25/25609/original/700.jpg?6593)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-poses-as-masseuse-to-get-few-minutes-wi,35546/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default
The more this event unfolds, the more convinced I become that this is all Bush's fault. I first thought perhaps global warming was involved, then Halliburton. But I have settled on W.
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 02:16:17 PM
The more this event unfolds, the more convinced I become that this is all Bush's fault. I first thought perhaps global warming was involved, then Halliburton. But I have settled on W.
Don't forget fracking!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 17, 2014, 02:31:56 PM
Don't forget fracking!
I am doing all I can to not assign any blame on this:
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/03/04/as-ukraine-rages-gop-fires-on-hillary-for-failed-reset/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1393955296479.cached.jpg)
It's the least she and Obama would have done if W were president...
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 02:38:49 PM
I am doing all I can to not assign any blame on this:
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/03/04/as-ukraine-rages-gop-fires-on-hillary-for-failed-reset/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1393955296479.cached.jpg)
It's the least she and Obama would have done if W were president...
Ahh, yes, the 'overload' button.
It's not her fault. She was just trying to find a clever way to do president Obama's bidding.
You really can't blame Obama either. Most people fail at their first job. It's an important part of growing up.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/getcovered/2.gif)
Russian news is now claiming that "Russia is capable of turning the United States into a radioactive pile of ash."
They're actually showing mushroom clouds and sims on the news. Perhaps now is a good time to stop talking AT them and actually have someone, besides Kerry, talk TO them?
The president's "sanctions" were ridiculous, because they were limited, against a small list of people, and non of them were named Putin.
Welcome back to the COLD WAR!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 17, 2014, 03:20:36 PM
Russian news is now claiming that "Russia is capable of turning the United States into a radioactive pile of ash."
Meh. State television bullshit.
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 03:24:35 PM
Meh. State television bullshit.
Duh! But what happened to diplomacy?
Why do I get the feeling that President Obama can do nothing right according to you two?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2014, 04:01:23 PM
Why do I get the feeling that President Obama can do nothing right according to you two?
You don't say!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2014, 04:01:23 PM
Why do I get the feeling that President Obama can do nothing right according to you two?
Looks like someone has a new buddy..... To your post, tell us what Obama has done right, and we can talk.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 17, 2014, 03:31:20 PM
Duh! But what happened to diplomacy?
Obama gets laughed at by Russia. Obviously, they are racist.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/03/russian-deputy-pm-laughs-at-obamas-sanctions/
The people of the Crimea have voted to go with Russia.
Dear international relations experts gaspar and guido:
Why should the United States intervene now that their has been an election? Is it the responsibility of the United States to ignore the election and go to war with Russia?
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 05:18:57 PM
Looks like someone has a new buddy..... To your post, tell us what Obama has done right, and we can talk.
He hasn't gotten us into war yet. I suppose you would do otherwise.
Talk away.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2014, 05:44:19 PM
The people of the Crimea have voted to go with Russia.
Dear international relations experts gaspar and guido:
Why should the United States intervene now that their has been an election? Is it the responsibility of the United States to ignore the election and go to war with Russia?
Oh. Then let's just shut down this thread then. And Obama's sanctions (bwahahaha) subsequent to the election I guess are just another example of his being wrong.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2014, 05:46:10 PM
He hasn't gotten us into war yet. I suppose you would do otherwise.
Talk away.
Talk about what? I thought Iraq and Afghanistan were right calls. I think you are not even trying anymore...
Is this your best effort? Did you read a bumper sticker and find truth?
Please explain how the US should ignore this Ukraine election? Or not?
Please explain how keeping us out of war so far is also wrong. Or right?
If you have to refer to past wars to make your argument, OK.
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 05:18:57 PM
Looks like someone has a new buddy..... To your post, tell us what Obama has done right, and we can talk.
Nope, merely pointing out the obvious, counselor.
Quote from: Hoss on March 17, 2014, 06:41:07 PM
Nope, merely pointing out the obvious, counselor.
Nope. You are once again merely parroting someone else's point, obviously.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2014, 06:32:16 PM
Please explain how the US should ignore this Ukraine election?
I'm telling CF on you.
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 06:04:17 PM
Talk about what? I thought Iraq and Afghanistan were right calls. I think you are not even trying anymore...
Every time you show evidence of intellect, you go an put out a statement like Iraq was the right call....
Geez, what are we gonna do with you?
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 05:18:57 PM
Looks like someone has a new buddy..... To your post, tell us what Obama has done right, and we can talk.
I made my specific recommendations. What are yours?? Specifically....
Exactly HOW would you do things differently? And what would you do?
Or is this also your ACA mode response?
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 08:19:24 PM
Nope. You are once again merely parroting someone else's point, obviously.
Pot, meet kettle!
Kettle, meet pot!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2014, 06:32:16 PM
Is this your best effort? Did you read a bumper sticker and find truth?
Please explain how the US should ignore this Ukraine election? Or not?
Please explain how keeping us out of war so far is also wrong. Or right?
If you have to refer to past wars to make your argument, OK.
Tough to get a legitimate discussion around here, ain't it? Well, yes, he is parroting the "bumper sticker"-land point of view.
So far, we have done pretty much the standard diplomatic response routine. This will likely not make much difference about Crimea. I would like to see NATO step up and move in with the Ukrainians - move 100,000 NATO troops with equipment into Ukraine for training and supply - it is just joint exercises, after all. After they ask for help, of course. And NATO/EU should have an emergency meeting to act on any requests that Ukraine has regarding membership in both NATO and the EU. And we should support that fully - shipping stuff as fast as possible after these approvals....make Ukraine one of us as quick as possible - 2 or 3 days should be more than enough time. Rapid response force time. Get some missile defense capability there now.
If they really want to be part of Europe, then now is the time for them to step up, start drafting people for the army - activate their million man reserve and make the break. And the EU and us should be prepared to support this for a while. This is a whole lot like the Cuban missile crisis - except we don't have Jack Kennedy to go through it.
Or if they don't ask, then let Russia have them.
Quote from: guido911 on March 17, 2014, 08:19:24 PM
Nope. You are once again merely parroting someone else's point, obviously.
Obviously.
But then again, I don't bloviate like some on here because I like to see my musings on the internet.
Nor do I do it a 3am, much less. And use a/v cues almost exclusively to try to make a point.
Woe is me. Guido doesn't like me. I think I'll go have a drink. It is St. Patty's Day, dontcha know...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 17, 2014, 04:01:23 PM
Why do I get the feeling that President Obama can do nothing right according to you two?
Only when he does things wrong.
History has shown that to avoid war, when dealing with tyranny, you must negotiate from a position of strength, else your advisory will regard you as inconsequential.
As I said days ago when this thing began, we should have immediately threatened to sever economic ties, freeze accounts, and stop all aid to Russia. We should have shown resolve, and if Putin continued his advance we should have done just that. Russia's economy is already tattered and severance from US and European markets would devastate them. Instead, we gave several half-hearted speeches filled with hollow threats, and when it came down to it, the president "unleashed" his sanctions (that only affected a handful of individual Russians), and was met with a bronx cheer. Yesterday Russia's Dept. Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin (one of the 11 Russians hit with Obama's watery sanctions) laughed and called President Obama a "prankster." On Twitter he made fun of Obama, saying that he (Rogozin) doesn't have any assets in the US for Obama to freeze anyway. Our delay has given Russia the opportunity to move money and other assets away from our control.
As for the vote. . .first of all, it's not legal. If Russia marched 60,000 troops into Sitka and decided to have the Alaskan Russians vote to join Russia, that would not be legal either. About 12% of the population of Crimea are Taters who hate the Russians and boycotted the election, yet they report that 83% of the total population voted. CNN even videoed people stuffing the ballots. Crimea is part of the Ukraine, just as Sitka is part of the US. If Sitka wishes to rejoin Russia, they could vote for succession in a lawful way. For Russia to just invade is a violation of The United Nations charter (article 2(4)), which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." That is precisely why Putin hatched this idea for a vote, to invent some kind of legal premise on the grounds that he was somehow emancipating Crimea from the Ukraine.
If Crimea wants to join Russia, then they should be allowed to. If Russia wants to welcome them with open arms, that is wonderful. However you do not legally accomplish that through invasion and overtly fraudulent election. Our actions on this sets a precedent on how we will deal with this in the future, and so far we are not doing a very good job.
On a brighter note, Obama has recalled the failure we know as John Kerry and dispatched Joe Biden to travel to Poland to denounce Putin's actions. I am hopeful that Biden does a better job. Kerry's performance was disgraceful.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bi_afXQCIAAUwmU.jpg)
I know you really really want to defend President Obama, but there is nothing to defend here. He is making us look very very bad.
This is the snowball that takes shape when we project weakness. Even our allies are making fun of us.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-israel-usa-idUSBREA2H0SV20140318
Putin had earlier, in December, appointed Dmitry Kiselyov to be head of the Russian state run news agency, charged with portraying Russia in the best possible light.
He is the one who came out a day or two ago and said, ""Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash." With a mushroom cloud behind him on the screen.
One thing I thought was extremely interesting, and goes to a theme I have ranted about to friends and family since the cold war "ended"....Russia is NOT our friend. They are not even a good business partner. They are thugs, crooks, criminals, "mafia", etc. And we ignore that for some short term profits that are likely more than offset by costs of increased criminal activity here. We got them here in Tulsa....company started by their mafia - well, to be fair, no company in Russia is run by anything other than their mafia...
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-turn-u-radioactive-ash-kremlin-backed-journalist-223608042--sector.html
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 18, 2014, 08:50:32 AM
Putin had earlier, in December, appointed Dmitry Kiselyov to be head of the Russian state run news agency, charged with portraying Russia in the best possible light.
He is the one who came out a day or two ago and said, ""Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash." With a mushroom cloud behind him on the screen.
One thing I thought was extremely interesting, and goes to a theme I have ranted about to friends and family since the cold war "ended"....Russia is NOT our friend. They are not even a good business partner. They are thugs, crooks, criminals, "mafia", etc. And we ignore that for some short term profits that are likely more than offset by costs of increased criminal activity here. We got them here in Tulsa....company started by their mafia - well, to be fair, no company in Russia is run by anything other than their mafia...
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-turn-u-radioactive-ash-kremlin-backed-journalist-223608042--sector.html
Hopefully Biden puts forth a meaningful message in Poland today. Obama would have gone himself, but he's booked! He has a DNC fundraiser at the Jefferson Hotel tonight and two fundraisers in Miami on Thursday.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 18, 2014, 08:41:47 AM
This is the snowball that takes shape when we project weakness. Even our allies are making fun of us.
You missed the snowball that took shape when we decided to project "power" a few times during the last administration? People were laughing at us then, too, you just thought they were laughing with you instead of at you and the rest of us.
Just as a FYI, only because a few folks have commented on that. I am up at 3AM sometimes because I am WORKING. That's what small business folks do sometimes, is work late to make the business run and grow. Working at 3AM is a GOOD thing in my book since that means I have work to do and people to help. There. Everyone who is concerned with that can rest easy.
Quote from: guido911 on March 18, 2014, 12:34:41 PM
Just as a FYI, only because a few folks have commented on that. I am up at 3AM sometimes because I am WORKING. That's what small business folks do sometimes, is work late to make the business run and grow. Working at 3AM is a GOOD thing in my book since that means I have work to do and people to help. There. Everyone who is concerned with that can rest easy.
Hey, it sounds better than "I was PWI" 8)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 18, 2014, 12:37:00 PM
Hey, it sounds better than "I was PWI" 8)
Truth always sounds better than PWI.... :D
At a rally earlier in Red Square, many of the Russians were carrying signs that say "Obama, think about Alaska!"
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02855/ukraine01_2855618c.jpg)
I wonder what Obama's response will be when he gets done with tonight's fundraiser?
Joe drew some more red lines today, by saying that we may move assets into the theater, and that there were more sanctions coming but gave no details.
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/Biden/biden_grinning_ap.jpg)
Inhofe Weighs in on Ukraine During Port of Catoosa Visithttp://kwgs.com/post/inhofe-weighs-ukraine-during-port-catoosa-visit (http://kwgs.com/post/inhofe-weighs-ukraine-during-port-catoosa-visit)
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201403/inhofe.jpg)
QuoteSen. Jim Inhofe gave a legislative update today at the Port of Catoosa that veered into foreign policy.
A question-and-answer session during Inhofe's remarks to port stakeholders moved from local issues to international ones within about 15 minutes. Several people wanted to know about the situation in Ukraine. Inhofe said any gains made during the Cold War are being lost now.
"[Vladimir] Putin's going to go into the Ukraine now, then it will be others, and it's going to include Georgia," Inhofe said. "I guess what is happening in my opinion right now is that all the Reagan years are being undone and being reverted back."
He said most of the conversation on Capitol Hill about Russia is focused on economic sanctions.
"Do we enhance that by adopting a policy of — to pacify? Or do we get strong again and try to reassert ourselves in a military position that can do something about it ?" Inhofe said. "I fall into the second camp on that."
Inhofe said not building a ground-based missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic has been a foreign policy mistake.
Inhofe would be embarrassed by himself if he had enough intellect to understand that Reagan's advances were undone long ago by him and his ilk.
Gains during the Cold War? Yeah...the gains of fighting stupid wars, squandering massive amounts of wealth and our kids on those wars...more than quadrupling the national debt during Raygun's regime. Then doubling and doubling again under his protege's Lulled the masses into the insanity that somehow now that Russia wasn't the "Soviet Union" they were our friend. Yep, we came out way ahead.
"Going to include Georgia..." ?? Where has he been for the last few years - they have been in Georgia for a while now. 2008. During Baby Bush's regime - and we all know exactly how 'firm' Bush handled that.
And he is seriously saying we should go fight Russia?? He has always wanted to sling the nukes (learned that from Goldwater...) Sounds about right for his level. Well, just so long as his grandkids go along with everyone else' - let's go!!
And I bet the majority of the people listening to him actually believed what he said. Remember - 30% high school dropout rate is the norm for Oklahoma - and we see who gets voted in time after time.
Inhofe saying those words are really embarrassing. Does he not know that Russia already occupies most of Georgia? Does he not remember the U.S. response to Russian troops then under a republican President was economic sanctions?
He thinks we should reassert ourselves in a military position? Why should American lives be lost? This part of the world has been unstable for hundreds of years and has been part of Russia more often that not during the last century.
Let's just hope Jiminy isn't running again or at least that the GOP will realize he's ready to send out to the north 40 and they will find a quality candidate to forge a primary battle.
(http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/screen-shot-2014-03-19-at-9-05-38-am.png?w=430&h=315)
(http://media.cagle.com/95/2014/03/07/145397_600.jpg)
Putin fears the "hostile thrust"...whatever that is.
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-hits-back-own-sanctions-u-hostile-thrust-160038686.html;_ylt=AwrBJR.1FStT0i0AfvrQtDMD
Quote from: Townsend on March 19, 2014, 12:18:38 PM
(http://media.cagle.com/95/2014/03/07/145397_600.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/MmZfSIH.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on March 20, 2014, 07:12:38 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MmZfSIH.jpg)
He doesn't get why we have an executive.
The law is the law, domestic and international.
There is no plan but the President's plan, therefore there is no plan.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2014, 10:33:20 AM
He doesn't get why we have an executive.
The law is the law, domestic and international.
There is no plan but the President's plan, therefore there is no plan.
Might want to pick that cracker up before you're caught.
This is always good advice...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g45Lwqf4xi4/T15cpvouWWI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/X-r8jdVspyI/s1600/classic%2Bblunders%2Bvizzini%2Bthe%2Bprincess%2Bbride%2Bland%2Bwar%2Bin%2Basia%2Bmotivational%2Bposters%2Bsicilian%2B%2Bdeath%2Bfunny%2Bfilthy%2Bhot.jpg)
Quote from: Ed W on March 21, 2014, 07:43:05 PM
This is always good advice...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g45Lwqf4xi4/T15cpvouWWI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/X-r8jdVspyI/s1600/classic%2Bblunders%2Bvizzini%2Bthe%2Bprincess%2Bbride%2Bland%2Bwar%2Bin%2Basia%2Bmotivational%2Bposters%2Bsicilian%2B%2Bdeath%2Bfunny%2Bfilthy%2Bhot.jpg)
INCONCEIVABLE!
Quote from: DolfanBob on March 24, 2014, 09:35:47 AM
INCONCEIVABLE!
You keep using that word....
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Gaspar on April 03, 2014, 02:17:12 PM
Bill Clinton caught that episode last night. Know what he had to say about it?
"I'd
still hit that. Look at her play that
skin flute.
Well it's all over with now. Putin's done. McDonald's has closed down in Crimea. It's just a matter of time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596893/McFinished-McDonalds-pulls-Crimea-offers-staff-transfers-Ukraine-Hague-says-no-let-pressure-Russia.html
So now Putin has begun saying things like this "We have our own will! It has helped us to conquer! We are a victorious people! It is in our genes, in our genetic code!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/world/europe/putin-rallies-supporters-ahead-of-vote.html
This was in a speech to honor "Defenders of the Fatherland"
I wonder where this leads?
It begins.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/17/jews-ordered-to-register-in-east-ukraine/7816951/
Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine
Jews in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk where pro-Russian militants have taken over government buildings were told they have to "register" with the Ukrainians who are trying to make the city become part of Russia, according to Israeli media.
Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city's Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee "or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated," reported Ynet News, Israel's largest news website.
Donetsk is the site of an "anti-terrorist" operation by the Ukraine government, which has moved military columns into the region to force out militants who are demanding a referendum be held on joining Russia.
I strongly recommend that any link Gaspar provides be visited and read in its entirety. He usually takes enough out of them to make them controversial but not exactly accurate.
Its no surprise that anti-semitism is alive and well in the world. So are those who exploit political unrest for their own purposes. These fliers were analogous to the local Klan or Westboro disseminating their crap at churches.
Quote from: AquaMan on April 17, 2014, 10:47:42 AM
I strongly recommend that any link Gaspar provides be visited and read in its entirety. He usually takes enough out of them to make them controversial but not exactly accurate.
Its no surprise that anti-semitism is alive and well in the world. So are those who exploit political unrest for their own purposes. These fliers were analogous to the local Klan or Westboro disseminating their crap at churches.
Where was I inaccurate?
"Now it begins."
Then only the lead to the story which dramatically leads one to believe that this was not only widespread but sanctioned by government on one side or the other.
We have the same things happen here only then our crazies pull a gun and shoot innocents.
Quote from: AquaMan on April 17, 2014, 11:55:48 AM
"Now it begins."
Then only the lead to the story which dramatically leads one to believe that this was not only widespread but sanctioned by government on one side or the other.
We have the same things happen here only then our crazies pull a gun and shoot innocents.
They obviously have better gun control.
Fun how this works. With each step Putin takes, Obama shuffles back, and takes a selfie. He's planning another speech about the Ukraine where he will say absolutly nothing and take no meaningful action or impose any real sanctions. Today he plans his 6th phone call with Putin.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bi_afXQCIAAUwmU.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlSNzHaCUAAk6bT.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on April 17, 2014, 02:01:17 PM
They obviously have better gun control.
Fun how this works. With each step Putin takes, Obama shuffles back, and takes a selfie. He's planning another speech about the Ukraine where he will say absolutly nothing and take no meaningful action or impose any real sanctions. Today he plans his 6th phone call with Putin.
So get out there and make a difference.
Lets see what he says. He's only 23 minutes late so far today.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlclX7SCYAI2vCw.jpg)
Quote from: AquaMan on April 17, 2014, 10:47:42 AM
I strongly recommend that any link Gaspar provides be visited and read in its entirety. He usually takes enough out of them to make them controversial but not exactly accurate.
Its no surprise that anti-semitism is alive and well in the world. So are those who exploit political unrest for their own purposes. These fliers were analogous to the local Klan or Westboro disseminating their crap at churches.
The state department has bought into this, but this link suggests "false flag" hoax.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/17/report-jewish-residents-being-forced-to-register-by-pro-russian-militants-in-eastern-ukrainian-city/
Ever since Archer, "false flag" seems to be the rage.
I bet Ukraine is not even mentioned in today's presser. Willing to bet it's just going to be another Obamacare sunshine pumper.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlcnuacCAAEjWFW.jpg)
Kerry's chime:
Mr Kerry said the extent of the crisis had been highlighted in recent days by the "grotesque" sending of notices to Jews in eastern Ukraine, demanding that they register themselves as Jewish.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27072351#TWEET1103678
New Republic offers more detail:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117415/relax-ukraine-not-ordering-its-jews-register
Ukraine questions answered. . ."There is the possibility that diplomacy may de-escalate the situation in Ukraine." He also said that he has spoken with Merkel and plans to give Cameron a call. Shifts discussion back to Obamacare. Funny because the Reuters feed for the presser is labeled "Live News on Ukraine." http://live.reuters.com/Event/World_News
So, everyone got together in a room to hear the president say nothing. I bet the press is getting really tired of this.
You've just witnessed a forum contributor have a fit.
Quote from: Townsend on April 17, 2014, 03:28:49 PM
You've just witnessed a forum contributor have a fit.
I've just been idly watching. It's been quite entertaining.
Quote from: Hoss on April 17, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
I've just been idly watching. It's been quite entertaining.
Damn
Jake Tapper is covering the leaflet story. We all know how right wing and biased he is.
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/17/u-s-ambassador-to-ukraine-confirms-authentic-chilling-anti-semitic-leaflets-from-pro-russian-groups-in-eastern-ukraine/
Shocking. Leaflets you say?
I wonder why this story was not linked to...http://news.yahoo.com/deal-reached-calming-ukraine-tensions-now-212744318--politics.html
No, I really don't.
Quote from: AquaMan on April 17, 2014, 05:43:07 PM
Shocking. Leaflets you say?
I wonder why this story was not linked to...http://news.yahoo.com/deal-reached-calming-ukraine-tensions-now-212744318--politics.html
No, I really don't.
It's bordering despicable that these leaflets that ring of Nazism is so cavalierly dismissed by you. I believe it is most likely a hoax, but I am not blowing off the fact that someone actually went to the trouble to distribute those little ol' leaflets.
Quote from: guido911 on April 17, 2014, 08:39:42 PM
It's bordering despicable that these leaflets that ring of Nazism is so cavalierly dismissed by you. I believe it is most likely a hoax, but I am not blowing off the fact that someone actually went to the trouble to distribute those little ol' leaflets.
That's okay, a few years ago on here, he thought people displaying the Confederate flag was playful disobedience or defiance.
Suuuure, I regularly fly a Connie flag next to a Swastika flag just to show a little innocent defiance. I think I'll add an old Soviet and Cuban flag to the collection at the new estate. I'm sure the neighbors will love my playful sense of humor!
How can anyone just dismiss this? When I watched Secretary Kerry speak about this yesterday, well lets just say it shook me to my core. I do not believe for a second that these leaflets don't exist, I don't think Kerry would speak on it if he hadn't seen a copy.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 17, 2014, 10:15:46 PM
That's okay, a few years ago on here, he thought people displaying the Confederate flag was playful disobedience or defiance.
Suuuure, I regularly fly a Connie flag next to a Swastika flag just to show a little innocent defiance. I think I'll add an old Soviet and Cuban flag to the collection at the new estate. I'm sure the neighbors will love my playful sense of humor!
Are you quoting me there? Playful disobedience or defiance? I don't think so.
My thoughts have not changed on the Confederate flag. It was a battle flag and part of history. Most people don't know that the Civil War was not fought principally over slavery but over states rights and economic imbalances. Even Lincoln did not address the slavery issue until well into the war. As such, the Confederate flag meant something different than what it is popularly viewed as today. So, we should just ignore history in favor of current contextual meaning? Political correctness is your new philosophy? That would mean you agree with turning Cincinnati into MLK and Brady into Matthew Brady street. Cats are playing with dogs at this very moment!
Quote from: TulsaMoon on April 18, 2014, 08:46:03 AM
How can anyone just dismiss this? When I watched Secretary Kerry speak about this yesterday, well lets just say it shook me to my core. I do not believe for a second that these leaflets don't exist, I don't think Kerry would speak on it if he hadn't seen a copy.
Whose dismissing it? No doubt ignorant, bigoted, racist, inflammatory fliers were passed out by morons in masks carrying guns. If you are surprised these people exist you need to visit the deep South more often and pay attention. Its all over the world. One of them shot innocents at a passover celebration this week here in the homeland.
The implication was that this is part of government sponsorship. Drama fuels political agendas. No evidence exists of that any more than swastikas painted on garage doors in Tulsa implies our council is anti-semitic.
Quote from: guido911 on April 17, 2014, 08:39:42 PM
It's bordering despicable that these leaflets that ring of Nazism is so cavalierly dismissed by you. I believe it is most likely a hoax, but I am not blowing off the fact that someone actually went to the trouble to distribute those little ol' leaflets.
Cavalierly dismissed? They were being used as politcal fodder by a hater whose purposes are clear if you follow his posts. I am much more appalled by people who talk about death panels, death taxes, baby killers, welfare queens, etc as they do irreparable harm to our culture. Some opportunists in a country half way around the world that I cannot even talk to? Not sure what you think is cavalier about that.
Apparently you aren't getting the same political leaflets I receive in the mail each election cycle. Its stunning how ignorant people are. As a lawyer I'm sure you know that.
Per NPR, the synagogue sent some members to the office listed on the flyers to try to register.
The people in the office had no idea what they were talking about.
They were trolled by their version of stupid rednecks.
Quote from: AquaMan on April 18, 2014, 10:29:59 AM
Cavalierly dismissed? They were being used as politcal fodder by a hater whose purposes are clear if you follow his posts. I am much more appalled by people who talk about death panels, death taxes, baby killers, welfare queens, etc as they do irreparable harm to our culture. Some opportunists in a country half way around the world that I cannot even talk to? Not sure what you think is cavalier about that.
Apparently you aren't getting the same political leaflets I receive in the mail each election cycle. Its stunning how ignorant people are. As a lawyer I'm sure you know that.
You doubling down?
I had a great manager once who schooled me that he never made a decision that only addressed one issue.
Happy Easter mr. Gweed.
Quote from: AquaMan on April 18, 2014, 06:24:26 PM
I had a great manager once who schooled me that he never made a decision that only addressed one issue.
Happy Easter mr. Gweed.
That's "Oh Exalted Gweed".
Stipulated.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 17, 2014, 10:15:46 PM
That’s okay, a few years ago on here, he thought people displaying the Confederate flag was playful disobedience or defiance.
Suuuure, I regularly fly a Connie flag next to a Swastika flag just to show a little innocent defiance. I think I’ll add an old Soviet and Cuban flag to the collection at the new estate. I’m sure the neighbors will love my playful sense of humor!
Some people do that. The president's press secretary, for instance, likes to display soviet propaganda in his home. Harmless decor, that is all.(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/04/20/aduba2u3.jpg)
Oops... Putin keeps saying no Russian military involved in the military operations in eastern Ukraine. The problem is all the photographs showing Russian military men and intelligence agents in Ukraine. Some doing the exact things they did in Crimea.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html?_r=4&referrer=
We have are best man there to take care of things......
(http://media.giphy.com/media/Kwi0Iu9MxxOgg/giphy.gif)
On Saturday the Russian soldiers (who Putin says do not exist) announced they will not be moved from occupied buildings until the government in Kiev is also removed. Putin then laughed off any talks of additional sanctions, and Ukrainian government officials, out of fear of revolt, announced that Russian speaking Ukrainians would be granted "special citizen status" whatever that means.
Meanwhile here in the US, the president, Marvin Nicholson, Joe Paulsen and Marvin's brother Walter discussed next month's release of Chris Brown's new album "X" during 18 holes at Andrews (167th round since January 1st). Then the president vowed not to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline, or anything for that matter, until after the midterm election, and his dog Bo then went on MSNBC and claimed the decision was in no way political.
(http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/debbie-wasserman-schultz.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on April 21, 2014, 02:49:33 PM
(http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/debbie-wasserman-schultz.jpg)
"You need to muzzle that..."
Never mind.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 21, 2014, 02:49:33 PM
(http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/debbie-wasserman-schultz.jpg)
Bo's looking a little sickly, too many vegetables and not enough grains and meat.........
Quote from: Gaspar on April 21, 2014, 02:49:33 PM
Then the president vowed not to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline, or anything for that matter.....
What was the national interest for the Keystone pipeline again...??
Oh, wait...that's right - there is none!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 21, 2014, 09:44:43 PM
What was the national interest for the Keystone pipeline again...??
Oh, wait...that's right - there is none!!
Oh, I don't know, removes 4,150 tankers full of oil off of our roads and rails each day! Reduces transmission costs, and increases environmental safety at the same time.
I mean, you're right, we really don't need it. The oil is getting to our refineries anyway, it's just getting there on these:
(http://images.china.cn/images1/200712/415784.jpg)
and these:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130709081020-02-canada-train-0709-horizontal-gallery.jpg)
Either way, it's going to get there, libs are just going to have to figure out the mode of transportation they prefer.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 22, 2014, 07:22:52 AM
Oh, I don't know, removes 4,150 tankers full of oil off of our roads and rails each day! Reduces transmission costs, and increases environmental safety at the same time.
I mean, you're right, we really don't need it. The oil is getting to our refineries anyway, it's just getting there on these:
(http://images.china.cn/images1/200712/415784.jpg)
and these:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130709081020-02-canada-train-0709-horizontal-gallery.jpg)
Either way, it's going to get there, libs are just going to have to figure out the mode of transportation they prefer.
Interesting you should post a picture of a train wreck. That's usually what your posts devolve into Scott...
Just sayin'.
Pipelines don't solve that issue either...
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oaGWuBo6akc/T9w0AXZWF6I/AAAAAAAAE9M/ysqml63UJbo/s1600/2012-06-08%2Balberta%2Bspill%2B578287_476713402344646_1199282742_n.jpg)
(http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/home_page_slideshow/ExxonMobilOilSpill.jpg)
(http://assets.knowledge.allianz.com/img/russia_pipeline_permafrost__1_47858.jpg)
(http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2013/03/31/197976c2-a738-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/thumbnail/620x350/b4ecfc862938aed2c0d3f976c71cdcb0/arkansas_spill.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on April 22, 2014, 08:17:42 AM
Pipelines don't solve that issue either...
Nope, but the risk is significantly smaller. Significantly.
(http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/ib_23_t6.gif)
So the choice is still whether we choose the safest mode of transport, or default to the least safe while we play politics.
Quote from: Hoss on April 22, 2014, 07:39:32 AM
Interesting you should post a picture of a train wreck. That's usually what your posts devolve into Scott...
Just sayin'.
I think Debbie would find your comment offensive.
(http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/debbie-wasserman-schultz.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on April 22, 2014, 10:01:35 AM
I think Debbie would find your comment offensive.
(http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/debbie-wasserman-schultz.jpg)
I think I could sell all my bicycles and maintain my weight by simply placing that portrait on the refrigerator door and pantry door.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 22, 2014, 10:13:59 AM
I think I could sell all my bicycles and maintain my weight by simply placing that portrait on the refrigerator door and pantry door.
You know that warning they give on Viagra commercials about having an erection for more than four hours?
When you "seek medical attention" that is the picture they show you.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 22, 2014, 10:17:00 AM
You know that warning they give on Viagra commercials about having an erection for more than four hours?
When you "seek medical attention" that is the picture they show you.
Yep, no need for ice cube treatments.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 22, 2014, 09:59:55 AM
Nope, but the risk is significantly smaller. Significantly.
So the choice is still whether we choose the safest mode of transport, or default to the least safe while we play politics.
Why not run the pipeline East or West through Canada to ship to Asia instead of through the US?
Does it do that much good for you? Me? Our kids? Anyone we know?
Quote from: Townsend on April 22, 2014, 11:06:28 AM
Why not run the pipeline East or West through Canada to ship to Asia instead of through the US?
Does it do that much good for you? Me? Our kids? Anyone we know?
It will provide a temporary boost to the economy from a source other than the Feds. Other than that long-term job impact is negligible. The biggest issue I see is I don't recall any other pipeline ever being held hostage for political means. The State Department has signed off on it and there don't appear to be any objections from the EPA. The president is simply withholding approval or denial until a time it's more politically expedient to do so.
I'm curious how this man ever managed to have kids since he doesn't appear to have testicles.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 22, 2014, 11:22:39 AM
The president is simply withholding approval or denial until a time it's more politically expedient to do so.
A politician is holding a decision on something that many people are passionate about until after an election? No. Way.
Quote from: Townsend on April 22, 2014, 11:32:41 AM
A politician is holding a decision on something that many people are passionate about until after an election? No. Way.
You hit the nail on the head.
Passion over reason.
This is an emotional issue for Democrats. Even if there was proof that this pipeline would create 100 million jobs, cure cancer, and end all wars, the president would block it, because not to do so, would represent an admission of defeat or error. This president has a fragile constituency, more invested in emotion than reason or logic. He is simply doing what is best for himself politically.
It's a pipeline and pipelines are bad because they are owned by evil oil companies and they are bad, and they make people rich and rich people are bad and global warming and stuff. Easy sell!
Reason is a far more difficult to
peddle pedal.
(http://www.thedailyrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/600b09201e1.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on April 22, 2014, 11:44:13 AM
You hit the nail on the head.
Passion over reason.
This is an emotional issue for Democrats. Even if there was proof that this pipeline would create 100 million jobs, cure cancer, and end all wars, the president would block it, because not to do so, would represent an admission of defeat or error. This president has a fragile constituency, more invested in emotion than reason or logic. He is simply doing what is best for himself politically.
It's a pipeline and pipelines are bad because they are owned by evil oil companies and they are bad, and they make people rich and rich people are bad and global warming and stuff. Easy sell!
Reason is a far more difficult to peddle pedal.
Your posts make you appear broken.
Quote from: Townsend on April 22, 2014, 11:59:08 AM
Your posts make you appear broken.
OFA keeps an eye on me. ;)
Back on Subject. . .
We are deploying 600 troops this week. We have also moved another destroyer into the region.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/american-troops-eastern-europe-ukraine-russia-105910.html
He said the Sky Soldiers of the 173rd would be engaged in bilateral exercises with the militaries of their host countries, as opposed to having been deployed under the auspices of NATO. But he said that more deployments or operations involving NATO could be in the works and urged reporters against concluding that bilateral action by the Defense Department was a sign of some NATO members' unwillingness to make deployments of their own.
The Obama administration appears to have all but concluded that a diplomatic agreement struck last week to try to deescalate the Ukraine crisis isn't working. The White House already has announced more new non-lethal assistance to Kiev, and the next step could be new rounds of sanctions on Russian leaders.
Kirby also said the U.S. Navy's presence in the Black Sea would continue. The destroyer USS Donald Cook, which was buzzed by an unarmed Russian attack jet soon after its arrival, will be replaced by the frigate USS Taylor, he said.
I was just thinking about this today. My thought was that yes, he will likely approve it but will do so during an opportune time before the mid-term elections. As you get closer to the elections the Republicans will work themselves more and more into a frenetic who can go the most far right feeding frenzy and then Obama can approve this showing that he and the Dems are indeed more moderate and inline with the general public in comparison. He will get some disapproval from the far left (but it's the over all game that counts) and will also throw some bones to the left as well, something likely concerning clean energy initiatives and or protecting the environment. Is what I would do anyway lol.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 22, 2014, 05:46:34 PM
...and will also throw some bones to the left as well, something likely concerning clean energy initiatives and or protecting the environment. Is what I would do anyway lol.
Easy enough, he's got Keystone XL tucked away in a desk drawer.
The president will get another chance to sit down with Putin and work on their relationship. Hopefully this will be his Reagan/Gorbachev moment.
(http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c44169-16.jpg)
Stay strong Mr. President.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6821642120_af91c66389_n.jpg)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PUTIN_D_DAY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-08-17-05-44
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/06/24/Putin-asks-Federation-Council-to-cancel-use-of-force-resolution-against-Ukraine/1291403607875/#ixzz35fD6sAfZ
Concession?
Quote from: Hoss on June 25, 2014, 04:41:42 PM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/06/24/Putin-asks-Federation-Council-to-cancel-use-of-force-resolution-against-Ukraine/1291403607875/#ixzz35fD6sAfZ
Concession?
Another tactic.
When you push somewhere that resists, then back off and find somewhere else to push, until you find a soft spot that gives way. Then push hard.
Kind of like kids "shopping around" for the right answer - asking parents separately, then grandparents, etc. Till someone lets them have their way.
Airliner shot down. 295 dead including 23 Americans. President paused to speak on the matter:
"looks like it may be a terrible tragedy, right now we're working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority and I've directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian government," Mr. Obama said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-says-malaysia-airlines-flight-17-may-be-a-terrible-tragedy/
He then hopped on Marine One to fly to NYC and attend two DNC fundraisers (this will make 396 total since 2009). Both are to be held at the private mansions of donors and closed to the public and press.
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/Obamas/obama-tuxedo.jpg)
Yes, of course he should cancel all fundraisers and eliminate any closed door meetings when tragedies happen around the world. Just like all the Bushes did, the Clintons and the Reagans. Didn't they? Oh well, that would mean politics would be shut down indefinitely as there are tragedies everywhere, all the time.
Keep us posted now, y'hear?
The only reason it pays to do all that is the Supreme Court ruling that made corporations people. Even before that, Bush was able to do half the campaigning when there were rules to limit it.... I think it is about time Obama was able to do something more than Bush did!! Since Obama was unable to beat Bush on added debt, or Signing declarations, or Executive orders, or trillions spent on unnecessary wars, or the number of our kids killed and wounded!! Still, campaign events seems a little bit of a letdown considering the history....
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2014, 02:56:50 PM
Yes, of course he should cancel all fundraisers and eliminate any closed door meetings when tragedies happen around the world. Just like all the Bushes did, the Clintons and the Reagans. Didn't they? Oh well, that would mean politics would be shut down indefinitely as there are tragedies everywhere, all the time.
Keep us posted now, y'hear?
Chug that Captain, Gaspar...chug him good.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2014, 02:56:50 PM
Yes, of course he should cancel all fundraisers and eliminate any closed door meetings when tragedies happen around the world. Just like all the Bushes did, the Clintons and the Reagans. Didn't they? Oh well, that would mean politics would be shut down indefinitely as there are tragedies everywhere, all the time.
Keep us posted now, y'hear?
You have to admit, when MSNBC's Alex Wagner is questioning why the president is choosing to attend fundraisers instead of addressing crises, the optics must be pretty bad.
It is the fog that seems to surround every crisis for this president. We're attacked again on 9/11 and he flies off to CA for a fundraiser. He flies to within 190 miles of the border where there is a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions involving hundreds of thousands of children and he attends a fundraiser instead. Russia invades Crimea and it's a DNC fundraiser that night. ISIS invades Mosel and it's off to Laguna Beach for two days for fundraisers.
By the time he finishes his term (if he continues this pace) he will have attended more fundraisers than the past two presidents combined. Very busy man. He needs a vacation!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 17, 2014, 03:12:32 PM
You have to admit, when MSNBC's Alex Wagner is questioning why the president is choosing to attend fundraisers instead of addressing crises, the optics must be pretty bad.
It is the fog that seems to surround every crisis for this president. We're attacked again on 9/11 and he flies off to CA for a fundraiser. He flies to within 190 miles of the border where there is a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions involving hundreds of thousands of children and he attends a fundraiser instead. Russia invades Crimea and it's a DNC fundraiser that night. ISIS invades Mosel and it's off to Laguna Beach for two days for fundraisers.
By the time he finishes his term (if he continues this pace) he will have attended more fundraisers than the past two presidents combined. Very busy man. He needs a vacation!
(http://www.digitizedchaos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/03222013.jpg)
Great pic.
Why would I care what Alex Wagner says? More importantly why wouold you?
Excuse me, I have to go raise some funds to buy some food since my better half is up in socialist Mn visiting pudding brained liberals. It's a personal tragedy for me.
I cannot handle all this tranquility Obama is responsible for bringing in the world. I am also so grateful for the reset button pushing.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2014, 02:56:50 PM
Yes, of course he should cancel all fundraisers and eliminate any closed door meetings when tragedies happen around the world. Just like all the Bushes did, the Clintons and the Reagans. Didn't they? Oh well, that would mean politics would be shut down indefinitely as there are tragedies everywhere, all the time.
Keep us posted now, y'hear?
And Bush was crucified for his My Pet Goat moment. But I guess the difference is that only 23 Americans were possibly lost in Ukraine. Oh well, time to party with donors--just like after Benghazi.
Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2014, 05:03:52 PM
And Bush was crucified for his My Pet Goat moment. But I guess the difference is that only 23 Americans were possibly lost in Ukraine. Oh well, time to party with donors--just like after Benghazi.
Or Bush when more than 30 embassy personnel were killed.....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 17, 2014, 05:47:48 PM
Or Bush when more than 30 embassy personnel were killed.....
I know, Bush flew off to Vegas on a fundraising trip each time an embassy was attacked. And we know Bush blamed a video. So did Clinton. So did Reagan. And I could be mistaken, but I think Carter blamed a video when the Iranians kidnapped our embassy people. We all know Carter did nothing in response to that event.
So we should cut Obama a break or just ignore what he does that could be perceived as weak or rear end covering because the same thing happened elsewhere and under other presidents.
Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2014, 07:10:44 PM
I know, Bush flew off to Vegas on a fundraising trip each time an embassy was attacked. And we know Bush blamed a video. So did Clinton. So did Reagan. And I could be mistaken, but I think Carter blamed a video when the Iranians kidnapped our embassy people. We all know Carter did nothing in response to that event.
So we should cut Obama a break or just ignore what he does that could be perceived as weak or rear end covering because the same thing happened elsewhere and under other presidents.
Never said any of that...in fact, should never ignore anything Obama says/does, since he was immediately suspect from the git-go due to his stand on the Second Amendment. What I say is to NOT ignore what Bush and all the rest of them do, either. Just because they present themselves as wrapped up in the American flag, and wax poetic about their piety, does not mean we should let them get by, either. The RWRE gives Bush a 'pass' - nay, they sanctify him! - at every point, regardless. If anyone deserved to be impeached since Nixon, it was Bush. But hey, that wouldn't go well with "The Script" now, would it??
I don't want anyone impeached. That's not the issue. Here we have what Sen Carl Levin (rabid right winger) has described as a possible "act of war" in the Ukraine, Israel has started a ground offensive in Gaza, and Obama is at a freakin fund raiser. This is just TODAY. Forget about ISIS, our southern border disaster, Syrian chemical weapons attacks, etc.
Link to Levin comments.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/17/congress-mh17-crash-is-act-of-terror-and-putin-may-be-to-blame.html
And here is another rapid right winger not getting Obama.
I hope someone is beating on the reset button really hard right now.
Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2014, 05:03:52 PM
And Bush was crucified for his My Pet Goat moment. But I guess the difference is that only 23 Americans were possibly lost in Ukraine. Oh well, time to party with donors--just like after Benghazi.
Geez you're dense lately. The point is not that Bush was crucified for it. The point is that you can't shut down the system of politics and governing because of continuous tragedies around the world involving Americans. BTW, politics and governing are practically one and the same.
I think if you re-read your own posts you will realize how impossible it would be for our current and previous presidents to have been at all these disasters to, what, show their sympathy, outrage and pledge to investigate... in person? They chose their appearances carefully. Your hatred and distrust of Obama's leadership or your insistence of lack of leadership is truly blinding to reality.
Any more talking heads from that journalist industry you conservatives hold in such high esteem? How about Geraldo. What's he saying?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2014, 10:08:05 PM
Geez you're dense lately. The point is not that Bush was crucified for it. The point is that you can't shut down the system of politics and governing because of continuous tragedies around the world involving Americans. BTW, politics and governing are practically one and the same.
I think if you re-read your own posts you will realize how impossible it would be for our current and previous presidents to have been at all these disasters to, what, show their sympathy, outrage and pledge to investigate... in person? They chose their appearances carefully. Your hatred and distrust of Obama's leadership or your insistence of lack of leadership is truly blinding to reality.
Any more talking heads from that journalist industry you conservatives hold in such high esteem? How about Geraldo. What's he saying?
You used journalist and Geraldo in the same paragraph.... :D
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2014, 10:08:05 PM
Geez you're dense lately. The point is not that Bush was crucified for it. The point is that you can't shut down the system of politics and governing because of continuous tragedies around the world involving Americans. BTW, politics and governing are practically one and the same.
I think if you re-read your own posts you will realize how impossible it would be for our current and previous presidents to have been at all these disasters to, what, show their sympathy, outrage and pledge to investigate... in person? They chose their appearances carefully. Your hatred and distrust of Obama's leadership or your insistence of lack of leadership is truly blinding to reality.
Any more talking heads from that journalist industry you conservatives hold in such high esteem? How about Geraldo. What's he saying?
Are you really that dense? Obama's at a FUNDRAISER! Do you really think Obama going to a fundraiser is an acceptable response to an airliner being shot down and Israel essentially invading Gaza? This ain't about attending to other government business. And quit accusing me of hating on Obama. I have said nice things about the guy.
Here are other people's opinions on Obama's handling of these crises.
Burger runs must go on. We all know this is so important.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/07/17/with-ukraine-crisis-unfolding-obama-presses-forward-with-burger-joint-photo-op-infrastructure-speech-n1863240
https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/489824432018714626
(http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/piersmorganplane/1281149-1-eng-GB/PiersMorganPlane.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696366/It-looks-like-terrible-tragedy-Obama-briefly-addresses-Malaysian-plane-crash-emerges-23-U-S-passengers-board.html
Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2014, 11:01:33 PM
Here are other people's opinions on Obama's handling of these crises.
Burger runs must go on. We all know this is so important.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/07/17/with-ukraine-crisis-unfolding-obama-presses-forward-with-burger-joint-photo-op-infrastructure-speech-n1863240
https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/489824432018714626
(http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/piersmorganplane/1281149-1-eng-GB/PiersMorganPlane.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696366/It-looks-like-terrible-tragedy-Obama-briefly-addresses-Malaysian-plane-crash-emerges-23-U-S-passengers-board.html
As opposed to 5 minutes of intense leadership...acknowledging the tragedy, commiserating with the victims and families.... oh, wait....just happy to be with the kids.... after all, that IS his happy place....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR_rFXXz_44
With expert behavioral analysis - well, at least as expert as Bush was;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ja-W5LWVk
I think there should be a law that prevents any public showing or appearance by a leader in less than a couple hours after these type events - give some time to unscramble the brains and get valid information. Bush's Secret Service detail failed in a big part of their mission - by definition, they should have taken him out of that class and moved him to safe location - THAT is their #1 criteria in emergency response after protecting the life of the President from any immediate threat!
As for Piers Morgan....geez, guido, I am really starting to worry about you with a reference to that waste of oxygen on this planet....
Quote from: AquaMan on July 17, 2014, 10:08:05 PM
The point is that you can't shut down the system of politics and governing because of continuous tragedies around the world involving Americans.
I had no idea these fundraisers and golf vacations were so vital to our national security?
Are you sure this position will be of advantage to you in the future? ::)
Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2014, 10:40:58 PM
Are you really that dense? Obama's at a FUNDRAISER! Do you really think Obama going to a fundraiser is an acceptable response to an airliner being shot down and Israel essentially invading Gaza? This ain't about attending to other government business. And quit accusing me of hating on Obama. I have said nice things about the guy.
Density varies with quality of post.
You think that was the only thing Obama did that day? You've been digesting too much protein lately (hint: causes Gas).
You and Gas chose to frame his response in the worst possible way. One that reflects a shallow view of government. One that reflects manipulation of facts. Now, journalists are your friend rather than the liberal elite? Piers Morgan who is seeking to reclaim his credibility?
Your choice but you have to suffer the criticism for doing so. Maybe you're just a hater in general but when spin gets in the way of how management/governing really works, ala the world of Gas, it just looks like anti-Obama.
(edited because my battery died on the laptop)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2014, 07:35:34 AM
I had no idea these fundraisers and golf vacations were so vital to our national security?
Are you sure this position will be of advantage to you in the future? ::)
How many of these fundraisers and golf vacations with leaders of state have you been privy to?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 18, 2014, 08:35:19 AM
. . .fundraisers and golf vacations with leaders of state . . .
;D
Come on guys, lay off our Celebrity In Chief. Fundraising is a crucial function of the presidency.
Supposedly a recorded phone call from separatists to Russia, "we just shot down a plane".
There's attempts to find out if the missile came from one side or the other side of the border.
What did you expect the President of the United States to do? What could he possibly do that would have satisfied your expectations that you would have not just criticized him for?
What did you do differently? How come you did not immediately drop everything and get immersed in this issue 10,000 miles away? How do you know he didn't do a whole bunch of things and also did a bunch of unrelated things that are part of his everyday job?
This has got to be a new low for you Obama haters. There is plenty of things that he should be criticized for, but this wave of complaints that he actually kept working after a foreign incident happened is petty and plain stupid.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 18, 2014, 11:01:38 AM
What did you expect the President of the United States to do? What could he possibly do that would have satisfied your expectations that you would have not just criticized him for?
What did you do differently? How come you did not immediately drop everything and get immersed in this issue 10,000 miles away? How do you know he didn't do a whole bunch of things and also did a bunch of unrelated things that are part of his everyday job?
This has got to be a new low for you Obama haters. There is plenty of things that he should be criticized for, but this wave of complaints that he actually kept working after a foreign incident happened is petty and plain stupid.
I understand. Going on photo ops and two fundraisers is a suitable way to lead the free world after a plane is shot down (killing an American) and Israel essentially invades Gaza. I guess our pres now needs a vacation from all that work.
Step up big boy.
Tell us what you would do right this second about a plane being shot down in Ukraine. Right this second. Tell us.
We are waiting.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 18, 2014, 01:43:58 PM
Step up big boy.
Tell us what you would do right this second about a plane being shot down in Ukraine. Right this second. Tell us.
We are waiting.
He's reading "My Pet Goat". Give him a minute.
It has been almost 24 hours. Why doesn't guido911 have a plan and act now?
Everybody is waiting for your response and action.
Maybe guido911 is too busy doing other things he committed to. Maybe he is doing research on options.
I guess the President doesn't have that luxury. guido911 says so.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2014, 01:44:40 PM
He's reading "My Pet Goat". Give him a minute.
5 minutes +.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2014, 10:18:12 AM
Come on guys, lay off our Celebrity In Chief. Fundraising is a crucial function of the presidency.
It most certainly is crucial. While he is doing that, he is not doing something we
really wouldn't like.
;D
Now there's a guy who finds silver linings. Cup half full.
Caller Tells MSNBC Host MH17 Shot Down By 'Howard Stern's donkey'
http://jalopnik.com/caller-tells-msnbc-host-mh71-shot-down-by-howard-sterns-1606812900
I'm sorry, I was on a burger run/photo op. That seemed to be the most rational and leadership-showing action I could take in the short term. The two fundraisers was also distracting, but I understand that RM believes these decisions are absolutely the best thing Obama could have done.
What would I have actually done, RM? Canceled the photo op, canceled the burger trip, canceled the fundraisers, and at least pretended like I was engaged in what was happening. If the plane being shot done wasn't enough, certainly Israel getting into a ground war might have pushed me over the edge to appear like I was the leader of the free world or something.
Now, since it is clear you support Obama's decision to jet around and do photo ops, defend it. Tell us why you think that was the best "option"--assuming that what Obama did on the day of the shoot down was an "option".
So he didn't look like you?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 19, 2014, 02:31:55 PM
So he didn't look like you?
Different photo op and fundraisers. I was at Sonic, then donated money to feed the hungry. That's the difference, I was taking care of myself and trying to help others--not schmooze it up for personal gain. And before anyone states, "then why you bragging about helping others" (in the most smug, childish voice imaginable), I think I have already made clear I care about the hungry and needy--especially children.
Well this is frakkin great news.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/19/world/asia/ukraine-malaysia-airlines-scene-story/index.html
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2014, 02:18:23 PM
...and at least pretended like I was engaged in what was happening. I
That is exactly what you would have done.
G, if you want people to have respect for your job, your posts, what you know ,what you do, and how you do it you must show respect for others positions in life. I'm sure you do that for other lawyers. Neither you nor Gas have ever served in public office, much less at the presidential level. You make assumptions based on limited experience and information about those jobs. That makes you guys' posts pretty meaningless and mostly smug political sniping.
In short it makes you tools for those with political agendas who couldn't care less about what is appropriate or good for our country, just what is good for their narrow, shallow goals.
We should be proud of our president.
9 fundraisers and 18 holes of golf in less than 3 days! It will be a long time before any other president will be able to top that!
So Russian separatists in Ukraine shoot down a Malaysian airliner, and our President should be doing....what? Oh, he could lace up his boots, load his M4, and parachute into Moscow to hold Putin accountable, but that kind of thing only happens in the movies. Is that the problem? Perhaps our right-leaning fellows have seen too many Sylvester Stallone movies.
Or he could send, say, a well-respected former general to lay out the intelligence we've gathered on the Russian separatists, laying the ground work before the UN in order to gain widespread support for subsequent actions. Ah, no. That's already been done and done badly. No one would believe it a second time. We've lost all credibility there.
So what should our president be doing? It's easy enough to snipe from the sidelines about golf and fund raisers, but that's no more than empty complaints. What actions should President Obama take?
Quote from: Ed W on July 20, 2014, 05:15:41 PM
So Russian separatists in Ukraine shoot down a Malaysian airliner, and our President should be doing....what? Oh, he could lace up his boots, load his M4, and parachute into Moscow to hold Putin accountable, but that kind of thing only happens in the movies. Is that the problem? Perhaps our right-leaning fellows have seen too many Sylvester Stallone movies.
Or he could send, say, a well-respected former general to lay out the intelligence we've gathered on the Russian separatists, laying the ground work before the UN in order to gain widespread support for subsequent actions. Ah, no. That's already been done and done badly. No one would believe it a second time. We've lost all credibility there.
So what should our president be doing? It's easy enough to snipe from the sidelines about golf and fund raisers, but that's no more than empty complaints. What actions should President Obama take?
You should probably expect crickets, Ed. I mean there was very little if any criticism from the right to the delayed response to Katrina, which happened in this country. But oh noes! A Malaysian plane gets shot down over Ukraine? You better respond right away.
It's a double standard.
Well, there's certainly precedence for such a situation. KAL 007 was shot down while Reagan was at his ranch in Santa Barbara. He headed back to Washington the next day as more details emerged, eager to learn more and to be at the hub of government rather than hiding out at his retreat. Reagan appeared engaged and enraged. Even Obama's media sycophants have called Obama's remarks concerning MH17 as "sophomoric".
QuoteChris Matthews, Yes Matthews, Admiringly Recalls Reagan's Response to KAL-007 Shootdown
Brent Baker's picture
Amazingly, Chris Matthews concluded Thursday's Hardball by playing clips of how President Ronald Reagan reacted the Soviet shootdown of a Korean Air Lines 747 passenger jet in 1983 – even conceding, after a clip of Reagan charging the Soviets with terrorism and a "flagrant lie," that "he was speaking for the American people."
Matthews – probably inadvertently – illustrated how Reagan, unlike the current occupant of the White House, understood his role as leader of the free world under threat from evil forces.
Audio: MP3 clip
At Point Mugu Naval Air Station, on Friday, September 2, 1983 (MSNBC misdated the soundbite as from Sept. 1), Reagan asserted:
What can we think of a regime that so broadly trumpets its vision of peace and global disarmament and yet so callously and quickly commits a terrorist act to sacrifice the lives of innocent human beings? What can be said about Soviet credibility when they so flagrantly lie about such a heinous act?
Incredibly, Matthews acknowledged: "I can tell you, he was speaking for the American people back then who were absolutely furious at what the Soviets had done. Their cold-blooded killing of so many innocent people, their brutal destruction of so many human lives, their utter lack of compassion for the people aboard that plane."
Setting up a clip from Reagan's Oval Office address four days later, Matthews related: "And here's the way our President and we, the American people, felt."
From the end of the Thursday, July 17 Hardball on MSNBC:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a flashback. From the moment I heard about today's shooting down of a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, I remember that 1983 shooting down of a Korean airliner over Soviet airspace. Back then, the Soviets, still in a Cold War mindset, refused to admit responsibility for the deliberate murder of 269 passengers, including U.S. Congressman Lawrence McDonald of Georgia who was aboard. Here's how President Reagan reacted.
PRESIDENT REAGAN, SEPTEMBER 2, 1983 (at Point Mugu Naval Air Station): What can we think of a regime that so broadly trumpets its vision of peace and global disarmament and yet so callously and quickly commits a terrorist act to sacrifice the lives of innocent human beings? What can be said about Soviet credibility when they so flagrantly lie about such a heinous act?
MATTHEWS: I can tell you, he was speaking for the American people back then who were absolutely furious at what the Soviets had done. Their cold-blooded killing of so many innocent people, their brutal destruction of so many human lives, their utter lack of compassion for the people aboard that plane. And here's the way our President and we, the American people, felt.
Reagan-Oval-MSNBC-1983-09-06.jpgPRESIDENT REAGAN, SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 (at the White House): We know it will be hard to make a nation that rules its own people through force to cease using force against the rest of the world. But we must try. This is not a role we sought. We preach no manifest destiny. But like Americans who began this country and brought forth this last best hope of mankind, history has asked much of the Americans of our own time, much we have already given, much more we must be prepared to give.
MATTHEWS: There are events like this today that no one forgets. Especially not today.
I'm glad you guys think he appears 'sophomoric'.
Let's remember, he was also part of the Annual Press Dinner and had got in some golf all the while green-lighting Operation Neptune Spear. You know, the operation that killed OSB...
I think it's safe to say that most modern Presidents can multi task.
But hey, anything that sates the right and their craving to disrepect this President at every turn. If this President came out in favor of puppies, you can be sure Republicans would find a way to put them down.
Quote from: Hoss on July 20, 2014, 07:03:48 PM
I'm glad you guys think he appears 'sophomoric'.
Let's remember, he was also part of the Annual Press Dinner and had got in some golf all the while green-lighting Operation Neptune Spear. You know, the operation that killed OSB...
I think it's safe to say that most modern Presidents can multi task.
But hey, anything that sates the right and their craving to disrepect this President at every turn. If this President came out in favor of puppies, you can be sure Republicans would find a way to put them down.
Damn it, I'm sorry, I forgot how respecting everyone was of "W".
Might be a good message there to be careful what you foment.
Quote from: Hoss on July 20, 2014, 05:19:15 PM
I mean there was very little if any criticism from the right to the delayed response to Katrina, which happened in this country.
There was more than enough criticism from the left to make up for it. The left was acting like an atomic bomb was intentionally dropped on New Orleans by W himself.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 20, 2014, 07:28:33 PM
There was more than enough criticism from the left to make up for it. The left was acting like an atomic bomb was intentionally dropped on New Orleans by W himself.
Last time I checked, however, New Orleans was in the US...not in Crimea or Ukraine.
The right is making it sound like the President dropped a bomb on Alabama.
Remember, this is what the Gas Tool wanted Obama to act on immediately. Though he had no idea what the response should be and tied it in with golf and politics.-
Airliner shot down. 295 dead including 23 Americans. President paused to speak on the matter:
"looks like it may be a terrible tragedy, right now we're working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority and I've directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian government," Mr. Obama said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-says-malaysia-airlines-flight-17-may-be-a-terrible-tragedy/
He then hopped on Marine One to fly to NYC and attend two DNC fundraisers (this will make 396 total since 2009). Both are to be held at the private mansions of donors and closed to the public and press.
In retrospect the tool should be apologizing since there was 1 American, it was on foreign soil, the rest of the world knows who is at fault and isn't waiting with bated breath for our response, and his response appears to be intelligent, deliberative and correct. But no, Gas has a reality problem.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 20, 2014, 08:21:26 PM
Remember, this is what the Gas Tool wanted Obama to act on immediately. Though he had no idea what the response should be and tied it in with golf and politics.-
Airliner shot down. 295 dead including 23 Americans. President paused to speak on the matter:
"looks like it may be a terrible tragedy, right now we're working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority and I've directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian government," Mr. Obama said. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-says-malaysia-airlines-flight-17-may-be-a-terrible-tragedy/
He then hopped on Marine One to fly to NYC and attend two DNC fundraisers (this will make 396 total since 2009). Both are to be held at the private mansions of donors and closed to the public and press.
In retrospect the tool should be apologizing since there was 1 American, it was on foreign soil, the rest of the world knows who is at fault and isn't waiting with bated breath for our response, and his response appears to be intelligent, deliberative and correct. But no, Gas has a reality problem.
Yes. He deliberately shot an 86. I should probably stop being so critical since CNN and MSNBC are now both carrying that mantel now. Next week, Obama vacation time again!
Ok, I'm done. ;D
Quote from: AquaMan on July 18, 2014, 06:54:03 PM
Now there's a guy who finds silver linings. Cup half full.
Here is the cup for the realist.....
http://www.despair.com/drinkware.html
Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2014, 02:18:23 PM
If the plane being shot done wasn't enough, certainly Israel getting into a ground war might have pushed me over the edge to appear like I was the leader of the free world or something.
Don't be too critical...you know he had to be involved in this one - he had to tell them, "sic 'em"....
Quote from: Hoss on July 20, 2014, 08:11:41 PM
Last time I checked, however, New Orleans was in the US...not in Crimea or Ukraine.
The right is making it sound like the President dropped a bomb on Alabama.
I believe there is probably little Prez Obama can do about the airliner in Ukraine. I also believe your memory of the Katrina situation is somewhat one-sided. My opinion, nothing to try to disprove.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2014, 08:29:18 PM
Yes. He deliberately shot an 86.
I went golfing on an official golf course one time. I shot a 296 for 18 holes and decided I ought to try something else.
I almost forgot, I lost 12 golf balls. :(
:D
Katrina was much more complex for Bush.
FEMA had really strong leadership that had performed well for many Presidents. They were truly a standout agency for the Federal government.
Bush created Homeland Security and decided to put FEMA under it's umbrella which downgraded the status of FEMA officials. Almost all of the top people immediately quit. Bush then assigned people who had no clue as to handling a disaster. "Heck of a job, Brownie" (Mark Brown) came from being the executive director of a horse breed association to being in charge of FEMA. His only government experience was working as Assistant to the City Manager for Edmond, Oklahoma.
Bush screwed it up so many ways before the disaster happened, then was criticized heavily for a lack of action or empathy afterward, that I believe the criticism was justified.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2014, 08:29:18 PM
Yes. He deliberately shot an 86. I should probably stop being so critical since CNN and MSNBC are now both carrying that mantel now. Next week, Obama vacation time again!
Ok, I'm done. ;D
You're never done. Its your life. What you are is beaten.
The job of the press is to build up celebrity (in all categories) then destroy it. Its hope, progress, praise, then as they tire and the ratings peak, its scandal, character assassination, drama, intrigue. Its a business plan for them. The idea of a liberal press has always been a fraudulent but necessary construct for conservatives and faux libertarians. You need look no further than its ownership.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 20, 2014, 08:48:13 PM
Katrina was much more complex for Bush.
FEMA had really strong leadership that had performed well for many Presidents. They were truly a standout agency for the Federal government.
Bush created Homeland Security and decided to put FEMA under it's umbrella which downgraded the status of FEMA officials. Almost all of the top people immediately quit. Bush then assigned people who had no clue as to handling a disaster. "Heck of a job, Brownie" (Mark Brown) came from being the executive director of a horse breed association to being in charge of FEMA. His only government experience was working as Assistant to the City Manager for Edmond, Oklahoma.
Bush screwed it up so many ways before the disaster happened, then was criticized heavily for a lack of action or empathy afterward, that I believe the criticism was justified.
I seem to remember that the authorities in New Orleans didn't even follow their own storm policies. Bush probably deserved some criticism, Obama deserves some too. It's humorous(?) to see the left forget how much they criticized Bush while they bemoan how much the right criticizes Prez Obama. It goes with the territory.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 20, 2014, 11:03:56 AM
G, if you want people to have respect for your job, your posts, what you know ,what you do, and how you do it you must show respect for others positions in life. I'm sure you do that for other lawyers. Neither you nor Gas have ever served in public office, much less at the presidential level. You make assumptions based on limited experience and information about those jobs. That makes you guys' posts pretty meaningless and mostly smug political sniping.
In short it makes you tools for those with political agendas who couldn't care less about what is appropriate or good for our country, just what is good for their narrow, shallow goals.
Got it. A person who has never served in public office does not get to complain about public servants. Now, I am sure your experience as an Oklahoma governor gives you the right to post this about Fallin: "Biggest freakin' loser governor we have ever had."
And I assume you have never criticized W, or any other republican because you "show respect for others positions in life."
Keep them coming...
(http://www.quickscores.com/downloads/thorntonrecreation_adult_sb.jpg)
edited because I cannot believe what you posted.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 20, 2014, 08:48:13 PM
Bush screwed it up so many ways before the disaster happened, then was criticized heavily for a lack of action or empathy afterward, that I believe the criticism was justified.
Swap Obama's name for Bush and the context, and you have the ongoing immigration disaster.
I think the best thing Obama could have done was to draw another red line. That is a proven arrow in his foreign policy quiver.
And there is this.
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/07/McKinneyt-Tweet-copy.jpg)
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/21/ujysu9yp.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on July 21, 2014, 01:25:50 AM
Got it. A person who has never served in public office does not get to complain about public servants. Now, I am sure your experience as an Oklahoma governor gives you the right to post this about Fallin: "Biggest freakin' loser governor we have ever had."
And I assume you have never criticized W, or any other republican because you "show respect for others positions in life."
Keep them coming...
(http://www.quickscores.com/downloads/thorntonrecreation_adult_sb.jpg)
edited because I cannot believe what you posted.
Gotcha! Used you own logic derived from your arguments about military service.
If I spent my days obsessing with Fallin you might have some weak basis.I don't and you don't.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 21, 2014, 07:29:50 AM
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/21/ujysu9yp.jpg)
This is what done looks like to someone with ODS. It's like quitting cigarettes. They do it all the time.
This is a dead thread. All that's left is the sniping and lifes too short. Carry on.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 20, 2014, 08:48:13 PM
Katrina was much more complex for Bush.
FEMA had really strong leadership that had performed well for many Presidents. They were truly a standout agency for the Federal government.
Bush created Homeland Security and decided to put FEMA under it's umbrella which downgraded the status of FEMA officials. Almost all of the top people immediately quit. Bush then assigned people who had no clue as to handling a disaster. "Heck of a job, Brownie" (Mark Brown) came from being the executive director of a horse breed association to being in charge of FEMA. His only government experience was working as Assistant to the City Manager for Edmond, Oklahoma.
Bush screwed it up so many ways before the disaster happened, then was criticized heavily for a lack of action or empathy afterward, that I believe the criticism was justified.
Katrina exposed what a cluster FEMA became, very true.
However, the real anger toward Bush stemmed from him taking five days or how ever long it was before he set foot in the area, rather choosing to fly over the devastation in the hours after the storm had moved on. In the meantime, celebrities like Sean Penn had descended on the area. People thought Bush was ignoring the situation when in reality, a disaster zone of that magnitude is no place for photo ops in the hours after a storm like that. There's simply no way to secure the area and the media posse that follows the president would have snarled attempts to rescue people and bring aid.
And yes, I would defend Obama similarly, if such a catastrophe should happen under his watch.
Now, back to the Ukraine, I've grown used to his tepid responses on international issues, so really MH17 is a non-issue. Business as usual in the Obama camp. In 20-30 years after all the memoirs and biographies of insiders are written, I don't think history will be very kind to the Obama administration.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2014, 09:19:26 AM
Katrina exposed what a cluster FEMA became, very true.
However, the real anger toward Bush stemmed from him taking five days or how ever long it was before he set foot in the area, rather choosing to fly over the devastation in the hours after the storm had moved on. In the meantime, celebrities like Sean Penn had descended on the area. People thought Bush was ignoring the situation when in reality, a disaster zone of that magnitude is no place for photo ops in the hours after a storm like that. There's simply no way to secure the area and the media posse that follows the president would have snarled attempts to rescue people and bring aid.
And yes, I would defend Obama similarly, if such a catastrophe should happen under his watch.
Now, back to the Ukraine, I've grown used to his tepid responses on international issues, so really MH17 is a non-issue. Business as usual in the Obama camp. In 20-30 years after all the memoirs and biographies of insiders are written, I don't think history will be very kind to the Obama administration.
I was a Salvation Army volunteer in OKC after the bombing. When President Clinton came to town,
everything stopped due to his security arrangements. It was the same at the World Trade Center when Bush came to NYC. In all honesty, it's better for politicians to stay away if their presence interferes with rescue and recovery.
And no one really gives a rat's adze about Sean Penn.
Quote from: Ed W on July 21, 2014, 04:28:46 PM
I was a Salvation Army volunteer in OKC after the bombing. When President Clinton came to town, everything stopped due to his security arrangements. It was the same at the World Trade Center when Bush came to NYC. In all honesty, it's better for politicians to stay away if their presence interferes with rescue and recovery.
And no one really gives a rat's adze about Sean Penn.
Obama heads to Seattle for another fundraiser on Tuesday. I-90 is already down to one lane and the local stations are warning that traffic will be completely closed down for everything but the westbound lane during the president's trip to the massive estate of Jim Sinegal for a closed event with billionaire donors.
(http://media.king5.com/images/469*264/Sinegal_Home_5.JPG)
He then heads to San Francisco for two fundraisers where they are issuing similar traffic warnings. He and Nancy Pelosi will meet at the mansion of George Marcus, for cocktails and a private dinner. (http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/black-mountain-copy.jpg)
The road closures won't really affect the commute of his donor community, just the little people who have to go to jobs and stuff.
Downloading and posting pictures of private homes where the President is going to?
Really?
You need a hobby of something besides whining about Obama.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2014, 07:21:40 AM
Obama heads to Seattle for another fundraiser on Tuesday. I-90 is already down to one lane and the local stations are warning that traffic will be completely closed down for everything but the westbound lane during the president's trip to the massive estate of Jim Sinegal for a closed event with billionaire donors.
Probably some evil Microsoft execs who are in the process of jettisoning thousands and thousands of MS employees and untold numbers of "contractors".
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2014, 09:48:19 AM
Probably some evil Microsoft execs who are in the process of jettisoning thousands and thousands of MS employees and untold numbers of "contractors".
No, just the former CEO of Costco, and a residential real-estate mogul.
You guys should read this:
From Tip O'Neil's autobiography:
"All the stories about Reagan`s working only three or four hours a day made me wonder who was really in charge in the White House. I`ll never forget that summer day in 1983 when Flight 007, the Korean airliner, was shot down by the Soviets. I was on Cape Cod, where Secretary of State George Shultz called me at 7 in the morning. After telling me what had happened, he said he was sending down a plane to bring me to Washington for an emergency meeting at the White House.
``I`ll be ready,`` I said. ``But what does the President think about this?``
``He`s still asleep,`` said Shultz. ``He doesn`t know about it yet.``
``You`ve got to be kidding,`` I said. ``You mean you`re calling me before you`ve even notified the President?``
``We`ll tell him when he wakes up,`` said Shultz. To me, that comment spoke volumes."
I think I know who sounds more disengaged here. Saint Ronny...but that's just my opinion.
Quote from: Hoss on July 22, 2014, 10:55:21 AM
You guys should read this:
From Tip O'Neil's autobiography:
"All the stories about Reagan`s working only three or four hours a day made me wonder who was really in charge in the White House. I`ll never forget that summer day in 1983 when Flight 007, the Korean airliner, was shot down by the Soviets. I was on Cape Cod, where Secretary of State George Shultz called me at 7 in the morning. After telling me what had happened, he said he was sending down a plane to bring me to Washington for an emergency meeting at the White House.
``I`ll be ready,`` I said. ``But what does the President think about this?``
``He`s still asleep,`` said Shultz. ``He doesn`t know about it yet.``
``You`ve got to be kidding,`` I said. ``You mean you`re calling me before you`ve even notified the President?``
``We`ll tell him when he wakes up,`` said Shultz. To me, that comment spoke volumes."
I think I know who sounds more disengaged here. Saint Ronny...but that's just my opinion the facts.
Fixed it...
Alzheimer's messes with your head something fierce...and if you are President, well, that probably isn't an optimal solution. But, hey, at least HE was elected!
Quote from: Hoss on July 22, 2014, 10:55:21 AM
I think I know who sounds more disengaged here. Saint Ronny...but that's just my opinion.
If Reagan had been really paying attention, the thud of the wreckage hitting the ground would have wakened him.
I am inclined to blame his staying asleep on his staff.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2014, 12:46:53 PM
I am inclined to blame his staying asleep on his staff.
Is that a First Lady joke?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2014, 10:37:47 AM
No, just the former CEO of Costco, and a residential real-estate mogul.
Amazing how everything we say about higher wages for working people - all that better standard of living stuff - is not just illustrated, but is virtually sanctified by his example! He is up there with Warren Buffet and John Bogle as top business people in the history of the planet!
All the lies, distortions, the dissemination, misleading statements....by the extremist right, whose goal is the elimination of the middle class...have been blindingly shown as the falsehoods they are by Costco. Average wage around $20 an hour. Plus benefits! In retail - and not upscale "Macy's" type retail, either!! (Or what Macy wanted to be....)
And more than competitive with WalMart/Sam's with their minimum wage, gross lack of imagination and management skill mentality.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2014, 12:46:53 PM
If Reagan had been really paying attention, the thud of the wreckage hitting the ground would have wakened him.
I am inclined to blame his staying asleep on his staff.
He was too busy breaking the law in a "3 way" with Nicaragua, Iran, and Oliver North....
Quote from: Hoss on July 22, 2014, 10:55:21 AM
You guys should read this:
From Tip O'Neil's autobiography:
"All the stories about Reagan`s working only three or four hours a day made me wonder who was really in charge in the White House. I`ll never forget that summer day in 1983 when Flight 007, the Korean airliner, was shot down by the Soviets. I was on Cape Cod, where Secretary of State George Shultz called me at 7 in the morning. After telling me what had happened, he said he was sending down a plane to bring me to Washington for an emergency meeting at the White House.
It only took Reagan a mere four days to break off his vacation after the downing of KAL007.
Quote from: Hoss on July 22, 2014, 10:55:21 AM
You guys should read this:
From Tip O'Neil's autobiography:
"All the stories about Reagan`s working only three or four hours a day made me wonder who was really in charge in the White House. I`ll never forget that summer day in 1983 when Flight 007, the Korean airliner, was shot down by the Soviets. I was on Cape Cod, where Secretary of State George Shultz called me at 7 in the morning. After telling me what had happened, he said he was sending down a plane to bring me to Washington for an emergency meeting at the White House.
``I`ll be ready,`` I said. ``But what does the President think about this?``
``He`s still asleep,`` said Shultz. ``He doesn`t know about it yet.``
``You`ve got to be kidding,`` I said. ``You mean you`re calling me before you`ve even notified the President?``
``We`ll tell him when he wakes up,`` said Shultz. To me, that comment spoke volumes."
I think I know who sounds more disengaged here. Saint Ronny...but that's just my opinion.
Bill Clark, Reagan's national security advisor tells a different tale, that Reagan was aware of it as soon as CIA director William Casey let Clark know it was apparent the 747 had been shot down by Soviet aircraft.
QuotePresident Reagan was informed of the KAL catastrophe by his closest aide, national security adviser Bill Clark. As Clark's biographer, I discussed this with him many times.
Reagan was at his ranch in the Santa Ynez Mountains north of Santa Barbara when he received the news via telephone from Clark. "I told him Bill Casey [CIA director] just relayed an unsubstantiated report that the Soviets may have shot down an airliner, possibly Korean," Clark told me. Reagan replied to Clark: "Bill, let's pray it's not true."
They prayed, but it was true. The Soviets never let prayer get in the way of their work.
As Clark recalled, "He [Reagan] said, 'Bill, round table it,' which meant bring it to the decision-making process to get the opinions and recommendations of all the principals in the NSC: Shultz, Weinberger, Kirkpatrick, Casey...."
Clark called Reagan twice that evening with preliminary information, first at 7:30 PM, California time. Clark was in the "Western Situation Room" at the Biltmore Hotel in Santa Barbara, only a few miles from Reagan. They were not able to confirm the details until 7:10 AM the next morning.
Reagan was furious. John Barletta, his riding companion at the ranch, overheard Reagan shout: "Those were innocent civilians. Damn those Russians!"
Clark told the press that he personally expected the Soviets to perpetuate the "big lie" technique. He said he wouldn't be surprised if the Russians claimed that the commercial airliner was on an American espionage mission.
Reagan immediately helicoptered to Point Mugu Naval Air Station in California to board Air Force One for Washington. At 12:35 PM, from the tarmac, he spoke to the press, excoriating the Soviets for committing a "brutal," "callous," and "heinous act"—a "barbaric act," a "terrorist act." It was all made worse, he said, by the fact that the Russians "so flagrantly lie."
http://spectator.org/articles/60015/mh-17-vs-kal-007—obama-vs-reagan
The biggest difference is Reagan, recognizing the gravity of the situation, cut short his planned vacation and fund raisers to return to Washington.
There was plenty of criticism at the time because Reagan never spoke at length until four days after the tragedy. At the time, we were still in the depths of the cold war so there had to be a measured and cautious response. I'll even go so far as to say that there's a need for Obama to tread on eggshells with Putin who is acting more and more like the Soviet premiers of yesterday.
It simply seems like there's a lot of escapism with the current president than with previous ones when the smile hits the fan. That's his style and it doesn't bother many of you, I get it. I guess I'm used to presidents acting, well, more
presidential when a crisis happens.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
Bill Clark, Reagan's national security advisor tells a different tale, that Reagan was aware of it as soon as CIA director William Casey let Clark know it was apparent the 747 had been shot down by Soviet aircraft.
The biggest difference is Reagan, recognizing the gravity of the situation, cut short his planned vacation and fund raisers to return to Washington.
There was plenty of criticism at the time because Reagan never spoke at length until four days after the tragedy. At the time, we were still in the depths of the cold war so there had to be a measured and cautious response. I'll even go so far as to say that there's a need for Obama to tread on eggshells with Putin who is acting more and more like the Soviet premiers of yesterday.
It simply seems like there's a lot of escapism with the current president than with previous ones when the smile hits the fan. That's his style and it doesn't bother many of you, I get it. I guess I'm used to presidents acting, well, more presidential when a crisis happens.
His televised response was very powerful and blunt. It came from a president in the Oval Office, not as an aside during a campaign speech, or a brief public remark at a fundraiser. Still gives you chills to watch.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
I guess I'm used to presidents acting, well, more presidential when a crisis happens.
Eh...
(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2008/12/15/va1237519159011/US-President-George-W.-Bush-left-ducks-as-a-man-th-6399391.jpg)
(http://www.informationliberation.com/files/040507bush.jpg)
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0109/54609_article_full/president-reagan-gives-his-iran-contra-speech-a-year-after-denying-there-was-an-arms-dealnbsp.jpg?206)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
There was plenty of criticism at the time because Reagan never spoke at length until four days after the tragedy.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/xne6vj/cover-up-in-the-air---what-would-reagan-do-
Quote from: Townsend on July 22, 2014, 03:00:47 PM
Eh...
(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2008/12/15/va1237519159011/US-President-George-W.-Bush-left-ducks-as-a-man-th-6399391.jpg)
You got to admit Bush was well-trained in the art of shoe-ducking. And anyone with any intelligence knows he kept a copy of My Pet Goat on his night stand.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
I guess I'm used to presidents acting, well, more presidential when a crisis happens.
No. You are not. Because it hasn't happened since Gerald Ford and you were too young at that time to be politically aware.
Yes it would have been great for the President to go on national television and castigate the Russians for the downing of this plane... only to find out a few days later that it was the Ukranians that shot it down. The Russians would have had an absolute field day with that. It was an awful act regardless of who did it, but it would have been unwise to point fingers until more certainty prevailed. Things were much clearer back when the Russians shot down that plane during Reagan's time and gave him a great opportunity to be "tough and clear".
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2014, 02:48:57 PM
His televised response was very powerful and blunt. It came from a president in the Oval Office, not as an aside during a campaign speech, or a brief public remark at a fundraiser. Still gives you chills to watch.
Not much else happened either, besides that speech. But it made us "feel good"....
So, again, what should our president be doing? Bombers over Moscow? Nuke parts of Ukraine?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
I guess I'm used to presidents acting, well, more presidential when a crisis happens.
That is why you like Reagan. He was an actor playing President. While he was studying his lines, his cabinet was trying to ruin the country and deal arms to our enemies.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 22, 2014, 08:05:25 PM
That is why you like Reagan. He was an actor playing President. While he was studying his lines, his cabinet was trying to ruin the country and deal arms to our enemies.
I sure wish they had left double digit inflation in place. I could be a millionaire by now. Gasoline would be nearly $18/gal but who would care.
{1.10**30 = 17.45}
http://www.inthe80s.com/prices.shtml
Simple savings calculator:
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/simple-savings-calculator.aspx
Quote from: Townsend on July 22, 2014, 12:53:29 PM
Is that a First Lady joke?
It wasn't intended to be.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 22, 2014, 08:05:25 PM
That is why you like Reagan. He was an actor playing President. While he was studying his lines, his cabinet was trying to ruin the country and deal arms to our enemies.
"Acting" or not, there's a huge difference between someone appearing to be engaged or being a complete tool who can't wait to hop on AF-1 and go burn some tax-payer purchased fuel to raise money for partisan purposes.
Touche'
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 22, 2014, 08:05:25 PM
That is why you like Reagan. He was an actor playing President. While he was studying his lines, his cabinet was trying to ruin the country and deal arms to our enemies.
Interesting. Perhaps Obama should act more like a president? Perhaps just a little?
The president is supposed to make decisions after he gets the information he feels he needs. I wouldn't expect him to go down to the Pentagon and start perusing over satellite photos and calculating possible trajectories, flight paths etc. He has taxpayer funded professionals who are supposed to be doing that for him and who then report back to him what they find out. They can report back to him on an airplane just as easily as him sitting in the Whitehouse.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 23, 2014, 05:53:51 AM
Interesting. Perhaps Obama should act more like a president? Perhaps just a little?
Perhaps some people think he is, Perhaps. Perhaps you have your view on how someone should "act" perhaps others have a different view. Just Perhaps.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 23, 2014, 05:53:51 AM
Interesting. Perhaps Obama should act more like a president? Perhaps just a little?
Naw. He's 27 Months and counting. It's time to go Mansion hunting. Say......Northern California?
Quote from: DolfanBob on July 23, 2014, 08:05:42 AM
Naw. He's 27 Months and counting. It's time to go Mansion hunting. Say......Northern California?
I'm betting a nice estate near Oprah in Hawaii. Or maybe he will return to his home state of Kenya.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 23, 2014, 08:04:06 AM
Perhaps some people think he is, Perhaps. Perhaps you have your view on how someone should "act" perhaps others have a different view. Just Perhaps.
With The Obama derangement a lot of people have, the main way he could really be more presidential is if he was white.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 23, 2014, 08:40:23 AM
I'm betting a nice estate near Oprah in Hawaii. Or maybe he will return to his home state of Kenya.
Or maybe her place in Santa Monica....she spent over $10 million in bathroom renovations in that one! Man, would I love to be in that position!!
Quote from: swake on July 23, 2014, 08:57:56 AM
With The Obama derangement a lot of people have, the main way he could really be more presidential is if he was white.
He is white.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 23, 2014, 08:40:23 AM
I'm betting a nice estate near Oprah in Hawaii. Or maybe he will return to his home state of Kenya.
I KNEW IT!!!!!
Do you think she was taken out back to the wood shed?
Oh wait. That's an American thing. I'm not sure that would be relative to his native Kenya. :D
Quote from: DolfanBob on August 06, 2014, 08:54:21 AM
Do you think she was taken out back to the wood shed?
Oh wait. That's an American thing. I'm not sure that would be relative to his native Kenya. :D
She later corrected herself during that exchange. But that didn't stop the screeching Obamabots from shouting "birther" and demanding all such of crap. Funny thing is that I do not hear that crying as to one of the sources of "birtherism", Hilary Clinton's campaign.
Quote from: guido911 on August 06, 2014, 01:44:24 PM
screeching Obamabots
I dig that you make comments like that when you're so crazy one sided that you probably have to get treated for a rash.