This is pretty heavy...

I like this perspective from the WP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-putins-error-in-ukraine-is-the-kind-that-leads-to-catastrophe/2014/03/02/d376603e-a249-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

-spence

Putin was made to look like a fool at Sochi. This is his attempt at redemption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are enough Russian nationalists in Ukraine to warrant protective measures. We are always telling other nations what to do but I have a feeling if the shoe were on the other foot we may be whistling a different tune. Do you honestly feel if Block Island chose to become independent we would wish them good luck?

There are enough Russian nationalists in Ukraine to warrant protective measures. We are always telling other nations what to do but I have a feeling if the shoe were on the other foot we may be whistling a different tune. Do you honestly feel if Block Island chose to become independent we would wish them good luck?

That begs the question was/is there really a threat to the Russian speaking Ukrainians? Most of those dead so far were shot by the old government's police.

Primarily this appears to be about Putin trying to stop the power shift towards the EU. His bribe to the former president didn't appear to work as planned...

-spence

Security is paramount and breeds some odd partnerships.We exploit countries every day to protect US interests.Does that make it wrong?

Security is paramount and breeds some odd partnerships.We exploit countries every day to protect US interests.Does that make it wrong?
Did I say it was wrong?

-spence

" Obama would be wise to seek Russia to defer Russian aggression without
specifying too clearly what the US ladder of escalation might be." Ignatius, WP.

Putin is in the catbird seat carrying the "Big Stick" and will do what he wants.
We have become like Casper the Ghost carrying a tooth pick and planning to cut our military in half. True peace comes from strength ,not weakness, without it there is nothing to negotiate with.

Did I say it was wrong?

-spence

I thought it was implied,but as is usually the case with you jeff,something was lost in translation.I will bow out now before I am baited into discourse which relies heavily on semantics, and facts and opinions become blurred by your imagination.

But I still look forward to making a fishing trip happen this year. Please bring Nebe to translate, I often don't understand what you are trying to convey.

:rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it was implied,but as is usually the case with you jeff,something was lost in translation.I will bow out now before I am baited into discourse which relies heavily on semantics, and facts and opinions become blurred by your imagination.

But I still look forward to making a fishing trip happen this year. Please bring Nebe to translate, I often don't understand what you are trying to convey.

Playing devil's advocate is hard work. I hope you're not tired out.

-spence

Putin is in the catbird seat carrying the "Big Stick" and will do what he wants.
We have become like Casper the Ghost carrying a tooth pick and planning to cut our military in half. True peace comes from strength ,not weakness, without it there is nothing to negotiate with.
Nonsense. The Russian economy is nothing without access to western banking, trade and his ability to sell natural gas to the EU at a premium.

Aside from China it looks like there's already strong alignment between the US and EU.

It's amazing how fast the Right jumped on the opportunity to divide Americans. I'll give the GOP this, they haven't proposed any meaningful policy in a decade, but their one liners are priceless.

-spence

It's amazing how fast the Right jumped on the opportunity to divide Americans. I'll give the GOP this, they haven't proposed any meaningful policy in a decade, but their one liners are priceless.

-spence

Never mind mirrors , I don't think you have any windows.

List the "meaningful " Democrat policies
By that I mean good ones
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never mind mirrors , I don't think you have any windows.

List the "meaningful " Democrat policies
By that I mean good ones
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Deflection.

-spence

I hope this Ukraine thing doesn't continue in the obvious direction it's heading .Your dear leader might have to sit in on a security council meeting or two .
I believe Ukraine is loaded with natural gas . This has nothing to do with Russian nationals . That's an excuse to invade . We've seen it before
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

---
[QUOTE=spence;1033929]Nonsense. The Russian economy is nothing without access to western banking, trade and his ability to sell natural gas to the EU at a premium.
__________________________________________________ _____________

EU will have to want to take the big blows here.

__________________________________________________ ______________
Quote=spence

It's amazing how fast the Right jumped on the opportunity to divide Americans. I'll give the GOP this, they haven't proposed any meaningful policy in a decade, but their one liners are priceless.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Spence get real, this current administration has done more to divide our country then anytime I can ever remember in my life time.
Palin and Romney both brought up the possibility of a possible geo political Ukraine issue and were put down by the great forward leftist thinkers. Lets think about the pressing global warming. :)

I hope this Ukraine thing doesn't continue in the obvious direction it's heading .Your dear leader might have to sit in on a security council meeting or two .
Ohhhh, I see you fell prey to more Drudge nonsense. Soon Jim will chime in with voting present in IL.

I believe Ukraine is loaded with natural gas . This has nothing to do with Russian nationals . That's an excuse to invade . We've seen it before
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And in violation of their own treaty with the Ukraine. Note they were pending joining the EU which is a stepping stone to joining NATO. Russia is close to having a NATO wall between Europe.

-spence

Ohhhh, I see you fell prey to more Drudge nonsense. Soon Jim will chime in with voting present in IL.


And in violation of their own treaty with the Ukraine. Note they were pending joining the EU which is a stepping stone to joining NATO. Russia is close to having a NATO wall between Europe.

-spence

Hope you're right . I'm a little less trusting of socialist dictator wannabes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well thankfully we have John Kerry to guide a path through the shoals here. If that doesn't work, we have Joe Biden in reserve on the bench ready to go. /Sarcasm

This is a fustercluck no matter how it works. Putin was trying to keep a lid on this until Sochi was done. This hit the hot water just after but had been brewing for a while.

Ukraine has 4 things important to Russia:



Wheat - they are the Slavic breadbasket
Warm water ports - year round warm water ports to sell their oil & LNG plus the Black Sea Fleet headquarters.
Buffer between the Russians and everyone else.
Russians. A lot of Russians that descended from the Russians that defended Ukraine from the Germans in WWII. Oh, and those that were put there to replace the many evicted Tartars

Ukraine means a LOT. Of all the former republics under the Soviet umbrella the one that probably means the most is Ukraine.

Militarily there are no great options. The Navy cannot get in there (the Turks might not even let us through as they try to figure out are they Muslim or EU/NATO). The Air Force would be playing in Russia's back yard. The Army is nowhere close and what is 1000 miles away is at the end of a Russian railroad for logistical supply.

NATO/EU is a near useless shell of a force that could stop the Russians heading west but not much else - the fruits of a peace dividend and near 2 decades of having the US do their heavy lifting. We can't afford it anymore. They are not going to go into Ukraine and have the Russians turn off their heat (they buy Russia's LNG).

If I were the Baltics, Poles, and Czech/Slovs, I'd be real nervous.

This will at best be settled diplomatically / economically. At worst, if our vaunted elected leaders fail, any other country with a treaty / memorandum is going to be real concerned that we will not meet our obligations. Taiwan / Japan / Philippines / Poland / Balitcs / Israel are all watching this very intently.

Crimea is gone, South Oesstia all over again. With luck, Crimea is the only thing lost. They could use the same tactics and get the entire coast from Odessa to the Crimea under their wing and have a small, landlocked Ukraine remaining.

This major leadership deficit in our country is gonna hurt us real soon. From both parties.

The Titanic Deck Ass Containment Apparatus Rearrangement Team is in full swing.

Well thankfully we have John Kerry to guide a path through the shoals here. If that doesn't work, we have Joe Biden in reserve on the bench ready to go. /Sarcasm
Remember after 9/11 people thought we had the foreign policy dream team...look how that played out.

The important negotiations here will be with the EU.

-spence

Remember after 9/11 people thought we had the foreign policy dream team...look how that played out.

The important negotiations here will be with the EU.

-spence

I might actually agree with Spence on this. Not about the 9/11 bit and "how that played out." The playing out involved back and forth opposition and agreement with those who were not on the "dream team." And an ultimate dismantling of the dream teams policies by those who followed. But that's, as Spence likes to say, old news. And if he were true to the implication that old news is no longer relevant, one wonders why he likes to so often bring up old news. I guess if that tactic suits his argument of the present moment (but subject to change the next day or hour in another thread) it's acceptable--after all, it's CHANGE. And change is the highest aspiration of the progressive mind. Apparently, the more often, the better.

But I digress. I may actually agree with the important negotiations being with the EU. If Spence means by that negotiations amongst Russia, the EU, and Ukraine. In fact, those are the ONLY relevant negotiations. And, power to truth, if the EU is not militarily strong enough or morally resolute enough to stand up to the same of Putin's Russia, the "negotiations" may be one sided in results.

The U.S. has too long been the military backbone for Western Europe--and NATO. That is not only outside our sphere of influence, but we are, again, in the process of weakening our own military might. Europe, if it wants to stand on whatever it considers its principles, needs to be willing to fight for them.

As far as "economic" sanctions--those cut both ways. Besides, Russia has always managed to be outside of Western Europe's economic sphere. And it is forming other alliances rapidly, now, in response to threats against its hegemony in what it considers its sphere of influence.

Remember after 9/11 people thought we had the foreign policy dream team...look how that played out.

The important negotiations here will be with the EU.

-spence

Today, I would trade that dream team for this dream team. The 2001-2002 team might have been C players at the time but the current crop is a solid -D at best. The influence the current administration can bring to the table is marginal at best but they are doing a wonderful job of accelerating our influence.



But I digress. I may actually agree with the important negotiations being with the EU. If Spence means by that negotiations amongst Russia, the EU, and Ukraine. In fact, those are the ONLY relevant negotiations. And, power to truth, if the EU is not militarily strong enough or morally resolute enough to stand up to the same of Putin's Russia, the "negotiations" may be one sided in results.

The U.S. has too long been the military backbone for Western Europe--and NATO. That is not only outside our sphere of influence, but we are, again, in the process of weakening our own military might. Europe, if it wants to stand on whatever it considers its principles, needs to be willing to fight for them.

As far as "economic" sanctions--those cut both ways. Besides, Russia has always managed to be outside of Western Europe's economic sphere. And it is forming other alliances rapidly, now, in response to threats against its hegemony in what it considers its sphere of influence.

:claps:

The irony here is that the us stock market is soaring today. That's the biggest "F-U" to Putin we can send. No one takes him seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one takes him seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lets call a spade a spade...not many take Obama and his "team" seriously either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lets call a spade a spade...not many take Obama and his "team" seriously either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK . . . I guess you chose the "spade" locution on purpose. But be careful. The administrations NSA spies are searching communications for key words and phrases that indicate extremist tendencies.

OK . . . I guess you chose the "spade" locution on purpose. But be careful. The administrations NSA spies are searching communications for key words and phrases that indicate extremist tendencies.

:huh:

What are you talking about?

:huh:

What are you talking about?

That there is another definition of "spade" (infrequently used in a derogatory manner towards black people formerly of African extraction). The PC / Diversity folks will be scanning your system for you may use other terminology that would indicate you are an Obama hating racist white heterosexual male.

You can't use sayings or phrases unless they have been pre-approved by the diversity kommissars.

:huh:

What are you talking about?

Just a poor attempt at humor. Calling a spade a spade is obviously not meant to be a racial reference. On the other hand, a spade is a sometimes derogatory reference to a black person. Well, it used to be, but gone out of fashion. So, when referring to Obama you say calling a spade a spade . . . well . . .

OOps . . . sorry John . . . I jumped in while you were posting and before I saw it. And I like your explanation better.

Just a poor attempt at humor. Calling a spade a spade is obviously not meant to be a racial reference. On the other hand, a spade is a sometimes derogatory reference to a black person. Well, it used to be, but gone out of fashion. So, when referring to Obama you say calling a spade a spade . . . well . . .

I like that. " gone out of fashion "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just a poor attempt at humor. Calling a spade a spade is obviously not meant to be a racial reference. On the other hand, a spade is a sometimes derogatory reference to a black person. Well, it used to be, but gone out of fashion. So, when referring to Obama you say calling a spade a spade . . . well . . .

It wasn't an attempt at humor, sound like a poor interpretation on your part...Jesus...what has the world come to here...I went and googled the term and looks like some have turned this into something more...take it from the Erasmus translation..."a garden tool".

Reminds me why I don't come on this thread much anymore, everyone is so uptight and looking for any reason to jump on someone.

PS. Putin is Eurotrash...might as well bring the KGB into the investigation too :devil2:

It wasn't an attempt at humor, sound like a poor interpretation on your part...Jesus...what has the world come to here...I went and googled the term and looks like some have turned this into something more...take it from the Erasmus translation..."a garden tool".

Reminds me why I don't come on this thread much anymore, everyone is so uptight and looking for any reason to jump on someone.

PS. Putin is Eurotrash...might as well bring the KGB into the investigation too :devil2:

Damn you're sensitive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Damn you're sensitive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chicks dig my sensitivity...

Chicks dig my sensitivity...

"Chicks" is rather degrading , don't you think?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Chicks" is rather degrading , don't you think?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't be so sensitive Steve.....:humpty:

It wasn't an attempt at humor, sound like a poor interpretation on your part...Jesus...what has the world come to here...I went and googled the term and looks like some have turned this into something more...take it from the Erasmus translation..."a garden tool".

Yes, it was, really, an attempt at humor. Apparently a VERY POOR attempt since you took it seriously. I did say your phrase was obviously not meant to be a racial reference. I thought that the use of "spade" as a racial slur was more widely known, but in no way did I mean to say anything negative about your post--which I thought was a good retort to Nebe's post. My admonition to "be careful" was kidding and in reference to so much of the "spying" being done on us in the name of security. I should have made that more clear. Maybe some smiley emoticon would have helped. :uhuh: I apologize for my stupid ignorance :wall:

Reminds me why I don't come on this thread much anymore, everyone is so uptight and looking for any reason to jump on someone.

If there were some emoticon for eating humble pie I'd insert it here. Again, I wasn't jumping on you, it was, really, truly, friendly kidding about how some PC/diversity folks, as JohnR put, it would find a reason to do so.

PS. Putin is Eurotrash...might as well bring the KGB into the investigation too :devil2:

I also agree with that. :love:

On the other hand, if you were just joking as well, you got me. :yak5:

P.S. That's why I liked JohnR's explanation better than mine.

You guys are all a bunch of crazy crackers.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I also agree with that. :love:

On the other hand, if you were just joking as well, you got me. :yak5:

P.S. That's why I liked JohnR's explanation better than mine.

Detbuch, no worries at all. I leaned something though...lots of stuff on Google related to how that phrase has transformed....

You guys are all a bunch of crazy crackers.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cracker.....wait a minute. Like :lasso:

or

"Cracker, sometimes white cracker or cracka, is a derogatory term for white people,[1] especially poor rural whites in the Southern United States. In reference to a native of Florida or Georgia, however, it is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context and is sometimes used self-descriptively with pride."

Or do you just mean we are nuts?

:)

...and agreement with those who were not on the "dream team."

These may be the neocons you claim to have no knowledge of, or perhaps it's all one in the same.

And an ultimate dismantling of the dream teams policies by those who followed. But that's, as Spence likes to say, old news

Wha? I thought Obama was getting pounded from the Left because he left so much Bush era policy in place.

And if he were true to the implication that old news is no longer relevant, one wonders why he likes to so often bring up old news. I guess if that tactic suits his argument of the present moment (but subject to change the next day or hour in another thread) it's acceptable--after all, it's CHANGE. And change is the highest aspiration of the progressive mind. Apparently, the more often, the better.
Premium grade spin here :hihi:

But I digress. I may actually agree with the important negotiations being with the EU. If Spence means by that negotiations amongst Russia, the EU, and Ukraine. In fact, those are the ONLY relevant negotiations. And, power to truth, if the EU is not militarily strong enough or morally resolute enough to stand up to the same of Putin's Russia, the "negotiations" may be one sided in results.

I'm not sure EU might has anything to do with that. NATO responsibility would supersede the EU if it came to blows. It will be up to the EU leadership -- especially Germany -- then make the financial gamble that buffering Russia right now is worth it.

As far as "economic" sanctions--those cut both ways. Besides, Russia has always managed to be outside of Western Europe's economic sphere. And it is forming other alliances rapidly, now, in response to threats against its hegemony in what it considers its sphere of influence.

I think Russia has a lot more to lose from sanctions than the US. What are they going to do, not repay their debt to the West?

-spence

These may be the neocons you claim to have no knowledge of, or perhaps it's all one in the same.

Nope. How it "played out" involved the back and forth opposition and agreement of the Dems and everyone else. Besides, that's old news.

Wha? I thought Obama was getting pounded from the Left because he left so much Bush era policy in place.

Oh, so the Obama policy and the 9/11 policy are much the same. And yet you imply that Obama's is better, and the Repubs haven't had a worthwhile one in 10 years. Anyway, the 9/11 policy is old news.

Premium grade spin here :hihi:

Spin vs. spin. May be premium grade, but could never match the quality of yours. :cheers2:

I'm not sure EU might has anything to do with that. NATO responsibility would supersede the EU if it came to blows. It will be up to the EU leadership -- especially Germany -- then make the financial gamble that buffering Russia right now is worth it.

Coming to blows is so 19th century. The wrong side of history, as J. Kerry would say. Surely the NATO wouldn't stoop to outdated tactics. Financial gamble? You mean sanctions actually do cut both ways as in your " The Russian economy is nothing without access to western banking, trade and his ability to sell natural gas to the EU at a premium"? That is, there is actually trade in which BOTH parties gain or lose?

I think Russia has a lot more to lose from sanctions than the US. What are they going to do, not repay their debt to the West?

-spence

But I thought you said the important discussion was with the EU, Ukraine, and Russia.

Cracker.....wait a minute. Like :lasso:

or

"Cracker, sometimes white cracker or cracka, is a derogatory term for white people,[1] especially poor rural whites in the Southern United States. In reference to a native of Florida or Georgia, however, it is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context and is sometimes used self-descriptively with pride."

Or do you just mean we are nuts?

:)

http://img.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/57024/cracker_ass_cracker.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shouldn't there be an ICE CREAM flavor Named after PUTIN?

I mean, COME ON Now

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/ravenob1/piss.png

Lets call a spade a spade...not many take Obama and his "team" seriously either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am pretty sure that is almost exactly what Putin calls Obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is pretty heavy...

I like this perspective from the WP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-putins-error-in-ukraine-is-the-kind-that-leads-to-catastrophe/2014/03/02/d376603e-a249-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

-spence

Spence, here is another perspective sort of along the lines of, or at least allied with, your heavy article. I think you would agree with it, if it's not too aggressive for your tastes. I like parts of it. But I wonder why it takes an American as well as American treasure for something like this to happen. I do like the call for reinstating the plan to install the anti-ballistic sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia which the Obama administration eliminated. And I really like the call for stepping up U.S. oil production including the lifting of the bans on government sites. That would really benefit our sluggish economy as well as replace the need for Ukraine and Western Europe to depend on Russian high priced oil while it would remove Putin's ace against economic sanctions.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/05/how-to-kick-putin-in-the-teeth/

Spence, here is another perspective sort of along the lines of, or at least allied with, your heavy article. I think you would agree with it, if it's not too aggressive for your tastes. I like parts of it. But I wonder why it takes an American as well as American treasure for something like this to happen. I do like the call for reinstating the plan to install the anti-ballistic sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia which the Obama administration eliminated. And I really like the call for stepping up U.S. oil production including the lifting of the bans on government sites. That would really benefit our sluggish economy as well as replace the need for Ukraine and Western Europe to depend on Russian high priced oil while it would remove Putin's ace against economic sanctions.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/05/how-to-kick-putin-in-the-teeth/

I said above that we have several economic options that would do Russia serious harm. The Administration has certainly indicated this is a route we're willing to go down.

As for his assertion the Ukraine should cut off Crimea from services...that's pretty unwise IMHO and would give Putin further rationale to move under the guise of protecting Russians...

-spence

This thread makes me crave Poutine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like Tracinski's approach, but it would take an administration that doesn't pussy foot around, wouldn't pull shields from the Poles and Cheks, have open mikes revealing "we'll talk after the election" and pushing re-set buttons.
The message has already been sent ,and unless there is a 360, Putin will milk it for all it's worth.

I like Tracinski's approach, but it would take an administration that doesn't pussy foot around, wouldn't pull shields from the Poles and Cheks, have open mikes revealing "we'll talk after the election" and pushing re-set buttons.
The message has already been sent ,and unless there is a 360, Putin will milk it for all it's worth.

The reality is as Obama once noted...the Cold War really is over. Putin can play games but most of what was the Eastern Bloc are now EU and NATO members.

Without strong ties to Western antagonists and an energy dependent economy Russia has little to offer, it's a 3rd world country.

-spence

The reality is as Obama once noted...the Cold War really is over. Putin can play games but most of what was the Eastern Bloc are now EU and NATO members.

Without strong ties to Western antagonists and an energy dependent economy Russia has little to offer, it's a 3rd world country.

-spence

Which is why I don't understand why the U.S. has to be involved. We could supply the Eastern Europeans with some weaponry and technology. The combined EU has more than enough resource and manpower to stand on their own, and to slap Putin and his ambitions silly. Even more so, since most of the Russian people don't want to go the mat for their Stalin-lite dictator's expansionist desire if it means they have to sacrifice and die for it. That would be the most demonstrative and lasting way for the Europeans to discourage threats from tyrannical bullies.

Maybe they just haven't fully bought in to what a union requires. Maybe they like and want to keep their differences intact, including the eternal squabbles and hates and jealousies among each other. And maybe they are just too used to depending on Big Brother America stepping in to do the dirty, bloody, and expensive heavy lifting. And maybe too many of them have their own internal problems, ethnic and economic, that concern them more than the fate of Ukraine.

The greatest good for their union, if they want to keep it and make it work, would be for them to get a unified backbone and punch the bully in the face, without outside help, and keep punching till he can't get up.

Which is why I don't understand why the U.S. has to be involved. We could supply the Eastern Europeans with some weaponry and technology. The combined EU has more than enough resource and manpower to stand on their own, and to slap Putin and his ambitions silly.

Maybe they could get together a "Rainbow Coalition" to fight the oppressor....send a double message to Putin. :hihi:

Call it "Operation Slap-Tickle"

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110423211906/uncyclopedia/images/9/9a/Gay_Soldier.jpg

...and even though I posted the above...you pretty much nailed it. Why do we need to jump in and fix everything...

one billion in aid should cure their problem...after all we do not need them dollars to repair our infrastructure....which crook is going to hide that billion....:)

The reality is as Obama once noted...the Cold War really is over.

-spence


The cold war maybe over as it was once described, but if he looks out
the window and sees Iran, Syria, North Korea, and now the Ukraine,
the winter vortex is coming fast.
I really doubt the EU wants to make the sacrifices needed to pressure
Russia. As was stated ,it is the US that always carries the heavy load and it's
time Europe stood up to the plate and lead the way.

Hmmmmm Russia sinking ships . This can't be goodi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We should just do what we did when they invaded Moldovia and Georgia.

Which is why I don't understand why the U.S. has to be involved. We could supply the Eastern Europeans with some weaponry and technology. The combined EU has more than enough resource and manpower to stand on their own, and to slap Putin and his ambitions silly. Even more so, since most of the Russian people don't want to go the mat for their Stalin-lite dictator's expansionist desire if it means they have to sacrifice and die for it. That would be the most demonstrative and lasting way for the Europeans to discourage threats from tyrannical bullies.
It's not about weapons, Russia's ability to use direct military force is geographically quite limited. They went to Crimea as it was one of the few important places they thought they could get away with it. The thing is they already have a military presence there and by treaty can have a very large military presence until 2048. Aside from some economic output does Crimea really gain them all that much? Given the push back from the West a land grab into eastern Ukraine doesn't seem very likely.

It's amazing how the GOP has jumped on Obama even going so far as to blame him for Crimea because he's "weak." I think the opposite may be true, our policy is putting a lot of strain on Russia and forcing their hand.

Regardless, the lack of unity must be giving Putin all the reassurance they need that we won't act. If anything, comments by the likes of Sen Graham and Rep Rogers are emboldening Russia's actions.

Maybe they just haven't fully bought in to what a union requires. Maybe they like and want to keep their differences intact, including the eternal squabbles and hates and jealousies among each other. And maybe they are just too used to depending on Big Brother America stepping in to do the dirty, bloody, and expensive heavy lifting. And maybe too many of them have their own internal problems, ethnic and economic, that concern them more than the fate of Ukraine.

The greatest good for their union, if they want to keep it and make it work, would be for them to get a unified backbone and punch the bully in the face, without outside help, and keep punching till he can't get up.

Certainly the EU should act more as a union, but that doesn't count us out of it. We don't rely on Russia for much compared to the EU and they'll need our backing to lessen any economic ties, they can't do it alone.

Germany is the real nut here with I think Poland a rising second...

-spence

There is something in Crimea that he wants, or wants to keep from getting out. What it is? I don't have a clue. It is clearly important enough to have risked all the goodwill he built (and now lost) from Sochi.

So this is the GOPs fault now .
The lack of unity , Spence??
Your hypocracy amazes me .
You even list the offending Senators .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is something in Crimea that he wants, or wants to keep from getting out. What it is? I don't have a clue. It is clearly important enough to have risked all the goodwill he built (and now lost) from Sochi.
I think he's just trying to disrupt the movement of the last Eastern Bloc states Westward.

Putin really seems to believe he can bribe his own people with revenue from energy, hold Europe by the balls, pretend he's a modern leader with Sochi and still act like a thug.

He may be delusional.

-spence

So this is the GOPs fault now .
The lack of unity , Spence??
Your hypocracy amazes me .
You even list the offending Senators .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never said it was the fault of the GOP.

But for a party who claims to have the moral high ground many sure seem to be suffering for daylight.

-spence

It's not about weapons, Russia's ability to use direct military force is geographically quite limited. They went to Crimea as it was one of the few important places they thought they could get away with it.

If its not about weapons, why are we sending military fly-overs in the Baltics. Russia used their geographically limited weapons to do what "they thought they could get away with . . ." So far they have. So far, you and they are in agreement with what they could do. If "sanctions" don't chase them out, then what?

The thing is they already have a military presence there and by treaty can have a very large military presence until 2048. Aside from some economic output does Crimea really gain them all that much? Given the push back from the West a land grab into eastern Ukraine doesn't seem very likely.

OK. Sounds like everything is under control. Nothing to see here. Let's move along. Tend to our own political bickering. Get back to redistributing billions over here instead of there.

It's amazing how the GOP has jumped on Obama even going so far as to blame him for Crimea because he's "weak."

That's more like it. Let's bitch about the GOP jumping on Obama for something he does. How dare they? But they are geographically . . . er . . . politically quite limited. Jumping on Obama is one of the few ploys they think they can get away with. That's all they do anyway--haven't had a good policy in over ten years. Give the poor slobs a break. They're just projecting. They're the ones who are really "weak."

I think the opposite may be true, our policy is putting a lot of strain on Russia and forcing their hand.

It seems their hand forced its way into one of the few places they could get away with. Do "we" (divided you know) want to force them some more?

Regardless, the lack of unity must be giving Putin all the reassurance they need that we won't act. If anything, comments by the likes of Sen Graham and Rep Rogers are emboldening Russia's actions.

Hush, hush Graham and Rogers. Quit acting like Jane Fonda. Oh wait, she did that during time of war, not before it started. Oh yeah, the Dems acted that way during the Iraq war too. Kind of emboldened the "insurgents." Ah, but GOP types putting in their two cents worth before a war starts--that's just plain disunifying. They should just shut up and go along with whatever O wants to do. That's what they eventually do anyway.

Certainly the EU should act more as a union, but that doesn't count us out of it. We don't rely on Russia for much compared to the EU and they'll need our backing to lessen any economic ties, they can't do it alone.

-spence

They could EASILY do it alone if they had the will, the courage, and the . . . uh . . . what was that you were saying about GOP meddling . . . oh, yeah--the UNITY. And it wouldn't hurt their economic ties with us. And if we allowed ourselves to export oil it would more than make up whatever they'd lose from Russia. But we and they have a myriad of squabbles and differences that lead to lack of unity.

The EU is supposed to be an economic union. But most of its members don't seem to have a grasp of basic economics. Many were eager to jump into NATO for protection from the big bad bear, and into the EU for handouts. It's almost as if Germany actually was the eventual winner of WWII. It has the controlling hand in the EU. And the outliers have to go along in order to get bailed out of their ineptitude. At the very least, all the member countries could contribute bodies for a united military force--which could easily defend itself against Russia. Yet we still have forces there.

And here at home, we are bankrupt and proposing to go even further in debt, are downsizing the military, have "commitments" to other countries in our hemisphere and to Pacific Rim countries. The Caribbean, Central and South Americans have serious economic problems which feed us with millions of illegal immigrants. And continuously have surges of Marxist puppet dictators (with whom Putin threatens to ally). Our Pacific allies are constantly threatened by China and N. Korea (Oh yeah, Russia is making some pact with China). What would we do if China decided to do a Crimea on Taiwan? Our ties to the Middle East drain us and confuse us, and our strongest ally there is daily under siege and in threat of annihilation, and other "allies" there fund those who wish to destroy us. We won't allow Canada to build a pipe line which has been determined not to be a threat to the environment. (And, oh, as a funny aside, the Canadian Government and the State of Michigan agreed on building another bridge to each other to ease the crossing traffic jams due to the security inspections since 9/11. The Obama Administration okayed the deal and promised $200 million, I think, not sure of the figure, to kick in for the U.S. side of the obligations. But Obama's proposed budget left that paltry sum out. So, the upshot, the Democrat candidate running to replace the retiring Senator Carl Levin, and who is behind in the polls is "jumping" in and proposing a bill to put the money back in federal budget. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: The Republican Governor had successfully fought for the bridged to be built, his Republican state congress backed him, and now the Democrat candidate who is behind in the polls is going to be the "savior" of the project!! Wanna bet there was a little "smart" Chicago Style collusion to leave the bill out of the budget so he could be the knight in shining armor?)

So we have these monumental problems which we don't seem to have a serious answer for, but somehow we're supposed to be the deciding factor in the Ukraine dispute, even though Russia is a third world militarily second rate and geographically limited runt?

And what is it, exactly, that the EU is doing to help us with our problems?

It's almost like the Canada/Michigan bridge thing--like we're behind in the polls but put a shining light on our dim situation by coming in to save the day in some off the wall matter that distracts from the bad moment. Just keep the distractions coming till the mid terms.

I guess you're right, we should just cut the EU off and let Russia strengthen it's economic position in the world. There's not a lot we can do about it anyway with Obama and Kerry running around encouraging this kind of primative behavior. Putin may even put his shirt back on...

Perhaps Russia can use it's strengthened position in Crimea to expand it's navy and start patrolling the Ocean's shipping lanes for us. The savings for the US taxpayer here would be huge and could be returned to the wealthy to increase the supply of goods. Good lord, just imagine if we had another smartphone option to choose from!

-spence

I guess you're right, we should just cut the EU off

:confused: When did I suggest we cut the EU off? Continuing trade with them and selling them oil if Russia refuses and installing anti-ballistic sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, for starters, is hardly cutting them off. But becoming involved in their internecine squabbles, especially when they should be fully capable of solving those themselves, seems more like meddling than helping and making us out to be villains and bullies like those we don't like.

and let Russia strengthen it's economic position in the world.

Heaven forbid we should let someone else strengthen their economic position, especially when we continue, out of fairness no doubt, to weaken our own.

There's not a lot we can do about it anyway with Obama and Kerry running around encouraging this kind of primative behavior. Putin may even put his shirt back on...

Obama and Kerry run around with primitive behavior in their home country with successful results. Primitive is not always bad. Employing some primitive strength would certainly help the EU in its relations with Russia.

Perhaps Russia can use it's strengthened position in Crimea to expand it's navy and start patrolling the Ocean's shipping lanes for us.

Oh, so now the weak little gambit into Crimea has actually strengthened Russia's position?

The savings for the US taxpayer here would be huge and could be returned to the wealthy to increase the supply of goods. Good lord, just imagine if we had another smartphone option to choose from!

-spence

Uh . . . savings for the US taxpayer??? When has our beloved, benevolent, debt racking Federal Government shown an honest interest in doing that? And haven't the wealthy gained economic ground against the not wealthy under Obama's tax the rich policies?

Ok, so now we should reinvest in Cold War tension to inflame a region already dependent on Russian energy? I'm not against using our natural gas surplus to help the EU become more independent, but balancing strategic weapons against home heating will come at quite a cost.

I think Russia has over-reached with Crimea. They may succeed in keeping it, but I don't think it's going to gain them much. It's a novelty prize for Putin if anything and will only accelerate Ukraine's status in the EU assuming they can get their crap together.

I think if Russia tries to annex the east and capture most of Ukraine's industrial output you'll see civil war...they don't want that.

The bigger picture is Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and Asia.

-spence

Ok, so now we should reinvest in Cold War tension to inflame a region already dependent on Russian energy? I'm not against using our natural gas surplus to help the EU become more independent, but balancing strategic weapons against home heating will come at quite a cost.

Holy crap, Spence! Those two sentences contain such a wide spectrum of diversely connected thought, fraught with a multiplicity of possible analyses each with divergent solutions, that it would take a War and Peace length book to give them an adequate response. I congratulate you for the genius like capacity to conceptualize and mix such a conglomeration of topics all at once in a brief cocktail of geopolitical dictum.

I'll give it a brief shot. The "we" whom you say should reinvest is an illusive pronoun here, and, dependent on who the "we" is, will have different responses. And that is critical. I take it you mean the U.S. government? Well, you probably know by now that I think the U.S. government is supposed to be very limited into what it can invest. One of the main things within that limitation is the national defense. That is an ongoing responsibility which is not supposed to be turned on only in crisis. It is not a duty to be performed only in time of war, cold or hot. The strength of a nation depends on various things, one of which is the ability to defend itself against whatever dangers or threats that obviously exist, and against those that might and can occur when the guard is down. It is a main responsibility of the central government to be on guard so that the nation can go about those other things that make the nation strong and great. Those who execute the duties of defense must not endanger the nation by bureaucratically weakening defensive capability in order not to "provoke" other nations into a "Cold War Tension." Those who wish you no harm should not take offense at your prudence. If they are competent, they will also maintain a strong defense.

But when the central government cuts defense investment and diverts it to other projects in which it is not empowered by the social compact to participate, it weakens the nation in every respect. It centralizes, thus makes static, the function and regulation of those various things that are intended for the People to create in constantly evolving and competitive ways. It limits the freedom of the People when it seizes their duties and responsibilities to itself to dole out to crony friends, and it diverts away the People's wealth which was meant for their defense, thus weakening its own true responsibility as well as the strength of the nation.

As for inflaming a region, it is more inflamed now than during the Cold War. And if "we" and the EU had invested in powerful military defense, I suspect it might be much less inflamed. But "we" and they, as governments, chose to invest the People's money into various schemes which usually exacerbated that which they were supposed to cure. It was not left for "We" the People to invest the billions and trillions which did not go into the common defense. How much richer, stronger, and freer our nations would be if "We" were allowed to invest our wealth as our social compact intended, and if "we" the central government had stuck only to what "We" had originally granted it!

As far as balancing home heating and strategic weapons goes--the point is that there is no need to balance. Those are meant to be different domains. The strategic weapons for the common defense is the domain of "we" the government, and home heating is the domain of "We" the People. The governments, in order to do that which they are not supposed to do, confiscate WAY more money than is required to fund strategic weapons. All that excess money left in the hands of the People and their entrepreneurs would find more innovative and economical ways to take care of home heating.

I think Russia has over-reached with Crimea. They may succeed in keeping it, but I don't think it's going to gain them much. It's a novelty prize for Putin if anything and will only accelerate Ukraine's status in the EU assuming they can get their crap together.

I think if Russia tries to annex the east and capture most of Ukraine's industrial output you'll see civil war...they don't want that.

The bigger picture is Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and Asia.

-spence

If "we" and "We" tended to all that we are supposed to tend, Russia and China, with the way their "we" and "We" operate, would dissolve into irrelevance.

Holy crap, Spence! Those two sentences contain such a wide spectrum of diversely connected thought, fraught with a multiplicity of possible analyses each with divergent solutions, that it would take a War and Peace length book to give them an adequate response. I congratulate you for the genius like capacity to conceptualize and mix such a conglomeration of topics all at once in a brief cocktail of geopolitical dictum.
Sorry, I had to deal with kids so I just condensed my stream.

I'll give it a brief shot. The "we" whom you say should reinvest is an illusive pronoun here, and, dependent on who the "we" is, will have different responses. And that is critical. I take it you mean the U.S. government? Well, you probably know by now that I think the U.S. government is supposed to be very limited into what it can invest. One of the main things within that limitation is the national defense. That is an ongoing responsibility which is not supposed to be turned on only in crisis. It is not a duty to be performed only in time of war, cold or hot. The strength of a nation depends on various things, one of which is the ability to defend itself against whatever dangers or threats that obviously exist, and against those that might and can occur when the guard is down. It is a main responsibility of the central government to be on guard so that the nation can go about those other things that make the nation strong and great. Those who execute the duties of defense must not endanger the nation by bureaucratically weakening defensive capability in order not to "provoke" other nations into a "Cold War Tension." Those who wish you no harm should not take offense at your prudence. If they are competent, they will also maintain a strong defense.
But in the real world our defense and our economy are completely interwoven. This has been a big reason for the growth of the US economy and the growth of the global economy. It was a marriage of convenience more than an ideological motivation.

I think the question today is if they're so interwoven so as to be inseparable.

But when the central government cuts defense investment and diverts it to other projects in which it is not empowered by the social compact to participate, it weakens the nation in every respect. It centralizes, thus makes static, the function and regulation of those various things that are intended for the People to create in constantly evolving and competitive ways. It limits the freedom of the People when it seizes their duties and responsibilities to itself to dole out to crony friends, and it diverts away the People's wealth which was meant for their defense, thus weakening its own true responsibility as well as the strength of the nation.
But so much of the "defense investment" has already been diverted to other projects through the Constitutionally appropriated system. It's not just providing for common defense, it's a yearly 1.5 trillion dollar tax recycler pumping billions back into our GDP and employing millions of workers.

As for inflaming a region, it is more inflamed now than during the Cold War.
Nonsense. You just saw a winter Olympics not more than 280 miles from where anonymous troops (wearing uniforms they picked up at the local Cabellas) are harassing Ukrainian troops. That's the distance from Providence to Philadelphia.

Neighbor Poland is the fastest growing economy in the EU and Belarus, Slovakia, Hungary, Turkey even Georgia are all doing impressively well.

Perhaps this is why Putin is so interested in Crimea, Russia is on the defensive.

And if "we" and the EU had invested in powerful military defense, I suspect it might be much less inflamed. But "we" and they, as governments, chose to invest the People's money into various schemes which usually exacerbated that which they were supposed to cure. It was not left for "We" the People to invest the billions and trillions which did not go into the common defense. How much richer, stronger, and freer our nations would be if "We" were allowed to invest our wealth as our social compact intended, and if "we" the central government had stuck only to what "We" had originally granted it!
Instead of investing in military I think more money has been invested to helping nations stabilize and build growth economies.

As far as balancing home heating and strategic weapons goes--the point is that there is no need to balance. Those are meant to be different domains. The strategic weapons for the common defense is the domain of "we" the government, and home heating is the domain of "We" the People. The governments, in order to do that which they are not supposed to do, confiscate WAY more money than is required to fund strategic weapons. All that excess money left in the hands of the People and their entrepreneurs would find more innovative and economical ways to take care of home heating.If "we" and "We" tended to all that we are supposed to tend, Russia and China, with the way their "we" and "We" operate, would dissolve into irrelevance.
They are not different domains if your domain is the overlay between the weapons and the home. An investment in armament has to be paid twice, once the the actual arms and again for the influence to position them.

-spence

Sorry, I had to deal with kids so I just condensed my stream.

No need to apologize. I like figuring out puzzles. Besides, why apologize for being complemented?

But in the real world our defense and our economy are completely interwoven.

Of course they're "interwoven" when a unitary weaver is the master and manipulator of the weave. The interweaving is a result of top-down totalitarian method of governing--the rule by men.

But they are "interdependent" when all facets of society participate on their own volition and with different individual talents and are not coerced by others. All, including the government, in this method, are limited by rule of law

This has been a big reason for the growth of the US economy and the growth of the global economy. It was a marriage of convenience more than an ideological motivation.

The U.S. economy has grown through the contributive efforts of its people. It grew faster and more powerfully when its people were less "regulated" by government. The "economy" grows more sluggishly when top down regulations are imposed--from which it recovers with new innovations in response. But as the cycles continue, it becomes more difficult for the smaller entrepreneurs to flourish and more necessary for "business" to become larger to comply with expanding regulations. To which government responds with more regulations, which, since they are in response to "economies of scale," favor the large and discourage the small. So the trend is bigger, and growing so, government and corporations. Individuals become cogs in the "interwoven" system.

So the "real world" to which you refer is the progressive/socialist dream/objective of the all-powerful central bureaucracy directing the distribution of wealth, either directly or through its subsidiary economies of scale, to the complacent masses who are kept "happy" cradle to grave and allowed the "freedom" prescribed by the State and its ruling experts. It is a tight, efficient, weave.

Your version of the "real world" denies the existence of individuals mastering their own fate and whose interdependent cooperation and innovation can create growth. All of which would actually have the greatest evolutionary potential. Your "real world" vision leads to a relatively static statism.

I think the question today is if they're so interwoven so as to be inseparable.

My answer would be that in a statist society they are inseparable since the State determines the defense and the "economy." Insofar as the progressive State has not been completely established, individuals have been able to wiggle their way through the regulatory maze and impede its growth. Their is a sort of stand-off. If State run health care eventually happens, the wiggle room decreases dramatically.

But so much of the "defense investment" has already been diverted to other projects through the Constitutionally appropriated system. It's not just providing for common defense, it's a yearly 1.5 trillion dollar tax recycler pumping billions back into our GDP and employing millions of workers.

You said that well--Constitutionally APPROPRIATED system. The Constitution has been appropriated by progressives and "interpreted" to allow them to federally create "other projects" which the original Constitution would not have allowed the Federal Government to do. This was the first great step toward the growth in the power of the central government. This not only allows it to divert defense money to other projects, but to confiscate even much larger monies from the private sector to divert into pet projects many of which fail. And those that stick in spite of fiscal insolvency become "necessary" because they have been "interwoven" into the fabric of society.

Recycling billions of tax "revenues" back into GDP is a peculiar way to grow wealth. Take it away, then give it back. And waste a lot of it before it is returned. What?--expansion of wealth cannot occur without government laundering private sector money first? Is that middle-man confiscation prerequisite to growth? The People just aren't capable of investing their own money and employing millions of people--the government has to do it for them? No--what makes the silly process necessary is the facilitation of government control. GOVERNMENT deciding the growth and direction society.

Nonsense. You just saw a winter Olympics not more than 280 miles from where anonymous troops (wearing uniforms they picked up at the local Cabellas) are harassing Ukrainian troops. That's the distance from Providence to Philadelphia.

There were Olympics during the Cold War. And just as in Sochi, the Russians used to dominate. And that region wasn't inflamed then. It was totally and effectively dominated by Soviet rule without inflammatory resistance.


Neighbor Poland is the fastest growing economy in the EU and Belarus, Slovakia, Hungary, Turkey even Georgia are all doing impressively well.

Doesn't sound like they need our interference.

Perhaps this is why Putin is so interested in Crimea, Russia is on the defensive.

Very Orwellian--Russia is on the defensive.

Instead of investing in military I think more money has been invested to helping nations stabilize and build growth economies.

Right. "We" the government must invest in all the things necessary to stabilize and grow economies. "We" the people must wait and follow the proper commands. Well . . . that IS a form of government. There are others. It's obvious which type you prefer.

They are not different domains if your domain is the overlay between the weapons and the home. An investment in armament has to be paid twice, once the the actual arms and again for the influence to position them.

-spence

Of course they are not different domains in your preferred form of government.

But in a republican form (small "r") with limited government and constitutional separation of powers, and wherein that government is limited to specific defined duties, the domains are separate. And the investment in the U.S. armament, no matter how many times it's paid, is the domain of the Federal government. Investment in "the home" is the domain of the private sector. Federal Government "investment" in the private sector responsibility has more often been a debilitating intrusion on the People's ability to grow and self-govern. The Federal Government would perform its duties, including arming the military, far better if it stuck to its domain instead of spreading its, and the Peoples, resources and efforts over every facet of our lives.

You seem to be so immersed in progressive status quo that nothing else can creep into your perception of possibility. You seem to have that Dr. Pangloss vision that we're in the best of all possible worlds.

Many wise and thoughtful posts on this issue. How long does anyone think it will be before Putin moves on the rest of the country? Who would actually stand up to him?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently not much brain power being used in this thread.

Once again how arrogant and stupid Obama is.Its not our part of the world...stay away moron and let the Russians do the work for you.

He reset the clock all the way back to the Cold War . This is embarrassing .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He reset the clock all the way back to the Cold War . This is embarrassing .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, what should we be doing then?

He reset the clock all the way back to the Cold War . This is embarrassing .
Posted from buckman's bomb shelter

It is embarrassing. But he is damned no matter what he does. If he did nothing.. he's viewed as a weak president. If he acts, he is kicking us back into the cold war... no win here...

its better to have a huge mystery to distract everyone, like a missing plane.

It is embarrassing. But he is damned no matter what he does. If he did nothing.. he's viewed as a weak president. If he acts, he is kicking us back into the cold war... no win here...

its better to have a huge mystery to distract everyone, like a missing plane.

He needs to stop making threats he can't back up. The three idiots should just keep their mouth shut.
His policies are all over the place. We arm Al Qaeda, but we can't send arms to the Ukrainians. His spoken words make matters worse .
I agree stay out of it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He needs to stop making threats he can't back up. The three idiots should just keep their mouth shut.
His policies are all over the place. We arm Al Qaeda, but we can't send arms to the Ukrainians. His spoken words make matters worse .
I agree stay out of it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Be specific.

-spence

Be specific.

-spence

In Obamas world this is specific
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree stay out of it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's exactly what Putin planned all along after sizing up the administration's
actions, laying down red lines without back up, Kerry saying "sanctions would not be personal to Putin", and all the way back to the apology tour.
The statement by the President that because we are not in the 19th century and things have changed since, is so naïve. Human nature has never changed from day one. POWER will always be the ultimate goal.
Heard a statement the other day, "it's the KGB vs the PTA."

In Obamas world this is specific
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We said we'd work with the EU to impose sanctions and that's exactly what happened. It's an annoyance more than anything but there's not a lot we can do short-term.

It's a great opportunity to make fun of the President though, keep up the good work :btu:

-spence

It's not making fun of the President, It's looking at the Administrations Policy
failures and misjudgments.

It's not making fun of the President, It's looking at the Administrations Policy
failures and misjudgments.
What specific Obama Administration policy is a failure? If anything this represents a lack of long-term strategy to contain Russia's influence.

-spence

What specific Obama Administration policy is a failure? If anything this represents a lack of long-term strategy to contain Russia's influence.

-spence

Nobody got time for dat !
It would take hours
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What specific Obama Administration policy is a failure? If anything this represents a lack of long-term strategy to contain Russia's influence.

-spence

Let's make this easier.

What Obama policy is a failure because of republican obstruction and would have been a success if bipartisan agreement encouraged success?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's make this easier.

What Obama policy is a failure because of republican obstruction and would have been a success if bipartisan agreement encouraged success?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I give up.... Why don't you give us a hint . His "It wasn't my fault " policy clearly has some followers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently our dumb-#^&#^&#^&#^& president has no issues with posturing.A Eurasian land war.....the US has no chance of winning this by itself and yet dumb-#^&#^&#^&#^& is willing to take us all the way.Challenging the former Soviet Union and and its former Republics to a war,good move moron.

HEY,OBAMA WAKE THE FVCK UP!I am not willing to die for your stupidity.And this includes all soldiers and a few of your former supporters.

Spence,Nebe,Rockhound,you guys willing to go die for this fvcking fool?Join the military and show your support for YOUR hero.This is the real challenge for you guys...step up or shut up.Are you willing to die for this fool?Are your children?

JohnR,MikeP and TDF...I will not shut my mouth despite the censorship.I've asked to be banned and no one here has the stones to do it and I will continue to tell the truth until forced out.

Obama is an idiot and completely Un-American and so are all those that support this ass-hole.

Posturing is a lot different than solid actions.

Know what was more foolish? Iraq and Afghanistan. ;)

Im not happy with what is going on right now either, but it is what it is.. a game of chest thumping.

Honestly i am not paying much attention to Obama these days. Ive lost hope in a way.

Posturing is a lot different than solid actions.

Know what was more foolish? Iraq and Afghanistan. ;)

Im not happy with what is going on right now either, but it is what it is.. a game of chest thumping.

Honestly i am not paying much attention to Obama these days. Ive lost hope in a way.

Whether or not if Iraq and Afghanistan were "more" foolish, they were more than mere posturing. And they did project a U.S. power which was dangerous to provoke.

But you are wise to have lost hope in empty rhetoric. Next step is to lose hope in the government being the answer to our economic and social problems. We the People have the power to solve those problems, just as you, personally, solve yours. We must depend on ourselves, not the government.

Honestly i am not paying much attention to Obama these days. Ive lost hope in a way.

That's a start.But I sure as hell would not stop paying attention to Obama as he is the problem.Losing hope is exactly what Obama wants...hopelessness is what he thrives on.

Don't lose hope...use your power and vote against him and his cronies this Fall.People just like you can make a difference.

JohnR,MikeP and TDF...I will not shut my mouth despite the censorship.I've asked to be banned and no one here has the stones to do it and I will continue to tell the truth until forced out.

Obama is an idiot and completely Un-American and so are all those that support this ass-hole.

We generally don't censor Norm. We let people say stupid things maybe even to a fault. You are making much more out of this than necessary.

Less than a dozen people have been banned here in the 13 -14 something years we've been around. Are you REALLY that hell bent on getting banned?

Nobody seems to be able to name specific Obama policy decisions that "caused" the Ukraine crisis...hmmm...

I also wonder how much petty domestic undermining of Obama by Republicans in Congress has emboldened our adversaries. God, it's like some of them get off with the "Putin out maneuvered him" stuff.

Ultimately, what's happening in the Ukraine is bigger than any one President. As I said before, we need a unified long-term strategy.

-spence

I also wonder how much petty domestic undermining of Obama by Republicans in Congress has emboldened our adversaries. God, it's like some of them get off with the "Putin out maneuvered him" stuff.


Pot, Kettle

Pot, Kettle

Not sure I agree. For instance, many including myself were supporting Bush after 9/11. It wasn't until the real motivation for the policy was exposed that support really eroded. This is a fundamental difference from today...

Bush didn't do anything during the Georgia event and granted it was a different scenario. After, Obama admin relations under Medvedev were generally constructive until Putin came back.

It's a different phase of the post Cold War world.

-spence

Not sure I agree. For instance, many including myself were supporting Bush after 9/11. It wasn't until the real motivation for the policy was exposed that support really eroded.
-spence

I TOLD YOU SO.. :love:

I think;

Spence is one of the most educated and intelligent members here, who can state a compelling argument with a lot of references to back up his argument

I think;

Except for the above reference for supporting Bush, post 9/11, Spence posts views that exclusively reflect a Democratic view. Period.

I think;

Spence should be working for the Democratic party or working for a politician writing and running campaigns. (you missed your calling)

I think;

Obama is out of his league here. I will leave it at that. Putin wins this round by default.

I think;

Putin is still KGB, always will be KGB. The world was stupid to think anything less.

I think;

The US learned nothing from the Soviets ten years in Afghanistan. Place is the absolute worst shiithole on the face of the planet. Been there..... Need to get our troops out of there ASAP.

X 2

It still sticks in my craw that we went into Afghanistan to knock out training camps and lost so many of our young hero's. We should have got the job done by using high tech hits and special forces as needed.

Nobody seems to be able to name specific Obama policy decisions that "caused" the Ukraine crisis...hmmm...

Which Obama policies "prevented" the Ukraine crisis? Was it the reset? Was it telling Putin to wait till he got re-elected, and he would be more flexible then? Was it the reversal of putting anti-missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic? Was it the in-your-face LGBT stuff during Sochi? Was it his superior understanding about the possibility of normal, workable relations with Russia? With the fabulous working agreement about how to handle Syria's WMD? Or how Russia would co-operate against Iran working to get nuclear weapons capability? All that worked out so well. And showed Putin how strong we are and how determined to repel any threats by Russia to retake any of their old satellites . . . right?

I also wonder how much petty domestic undermining of Obama by Republicans in Congress has emboldened our adversaries. God, it's like some of them get off with the "Putin out maneuvered him" stuff.

Petty domestic undermining by opposition parties is a long standing tradition in this country, going all the way back to 1800. That anyone would take that as weakness against our adversaries is stupid. We have demonstrated those squabbles were not obstacles to our power. That is, when we actually projected power with a strong military and a don't tread on me posture. When we weren't apologetic about our strength and willingness to use it. When we didn't consider ourselves just another country which undeservedly acted like bullies, but actually considered ourselves a mighty force for good and a threat to those who crossed us.

Emboldening our enemies by criticism during war, is another matter. No matter how much the opposition party disagrees with the war, criticizing the policies and saying we are wrong and should leave endangers our troops. Disunity in time of war emboldens the enemy and is bordering on treason.

Putin didn't invade Ukraine and take Crimea because we have petty domestic squabbles. He didn't fear us, or the EU. He invaded because he perceived a weakness. And he did that before the "Putin outmaneuvered him stuff." And Putin, apparently DID outmaneuver him. Why not get off on the truth? It's not as if Obama doesn't deserve it.

Ultimately, what's happening in the Ukraine is bigger than any one President. As I said before, we need a unified long-term strategy.

-spence

OK, since you ask for specificity, "Name specific Obama policy decisions" that "we need" for "a unified long-term strategy."

I think;

Spence is one of the most educated and intelligent members here, who can state a compelling argument with a lot of references to back up his argument



yeah...i think we're also told that Obama is one of the most educated and intelligent presidents ever, yet he distorts facts and bends the truth to back up his compelling arguments routinely and is in the middle of a disastrous presidency...maybe "most educated and intelligent" is overrated?:rotf2:

Here's the thing about the overly educated , which I'm not lumping spence in with, they tend to be somewhat brainwashed by our liberal education system and somewhat isolated from the reality of the working blue collar worker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since when does the ability to put a shine on a turd make one seem educated?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the thing about the overly educated , which I'm not lumping spence in with, they tend to be somewhat brainwashed by our liberal education system and somewhat isolated from the reality of the working blue collar worker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

brainwashed? Its called being educated to be able to think for yourself and form individual opinions.

The working blue collar worker is going to be brainwashed by talk radio and what he is spoon fed by what ever news source he watches and the less educated you are, generally the more attracted you are to news sources that are opinion based because guess what...you don't have to think to form your opinions, they are given to you.

Now don't get me wrong here.. you get idiotic libs who suck off of Rachael Maddow's tit as well... :yak5:

brainwashed? Its called being educated to be able to think for yourself and form individual opinions.

The working blue collar worker is going to be brainwashed by talk radio and what he is spoon fed by what ever news source he watches and the less educated you are, generally the more attracted you are to news sources that are opinion based because guess what...you don't have to think to form your opinions, they are given to you.

Now don't get me wrong here.. you get idiotic libs who suck off of Rachael Maddow's tit as well... :yak5:

I thought Maddow was a guy ?
Ya these college kids really are free thinkers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the thing about the overly educated , which I'm not lumping spence in with, they tend to be somewhat brainwashed by our liberal education system and somewhat isolated from the reality of the working blue collar worker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree. Most have never been out in the real world as either a blue or white collar worker. They spend all their years in higher education reading and studying books authored by Professors who did the same thing.

Give me a blue or white collar worker any day ,who has either run or been in business ,over the over the highly educated to serve in any political office.
Common sense comes from experience in the real world.

Debuch, Great summary of the failed policies of the Administration leading up to the Ukraine crisis.

It's not making fun of the President, It's looking at the Administrations Policy
failures and misjudgments.

I think Spence is prob. still waiting for you to tell use about the failures and misjudgements.

I'd also like to hear what Pres. Obama should have done differently re Ukraine. And also pls. contrast that with what Pres. Bush did about the Russian invasion of Georgia so we can see the difference.

Thanks

Nobody seems to be able to name specific Obama policy decisions that "caused" the Ukraine crisis...hmmm...

I also wonder how much petty domestic undermining of Obama by Republicans in Congress has emboldened our adversaries. God, it's like some of them get off with the "Putin out maneuvered him" stuff.

Ultimately, what's happening in the Ukraine is bigger than any one President. As I said before, we need a unified long-term strategy.

-spence

I think you have a point when you say that Obama could not have done much to stop Putin in the Ukraine. It's also worth noting that in the 2012 debate, when Romney speculated that Russia would be a major foreign policy challenge for the next President, Obama mocked him for it. Who was right, and who was wrong? It shows, yet again, Obama's amazing inability to see how things will play out (said the Surge would not work, said the Stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%, said I could keep my doctor, said 8 jillion jobs were shovel-ready, etc).

"I also wonder how much petty domestic undermining of Obama by Republicans in Congress has emboldened our adversaries"

None. How's that for an answer. I don't think our enemies are emboldened by the GOP. Our enemies do get emboldened, when Obama lets pakistan improson the doctor who told us where Bin Laden was. Why would anyone, anywhere, stick their necks out for us? This is how Obama repays our fiends who help us at great risk to themselves?

He's a joke.

"we need a unified long-term strategy"

Well, that should be easy. Because when he got elected in 2008, I heard a lot of talk about how, unlike Bush, Obama would be able to build effective coalitions because Obama had so much charm, he would make everyone love us. (2 days later, Chicago was the first city cut from the prospective list of Olympic host cities, which tells you how much validity there was to that claim).

I think Spence is prob. still waiting for you to tell use about the failures and misjudgements.

I'd also like to hear what Pres. Obama should have done differently re Ukraine. And also pls. contrast that with what Pres. Bush did about the Russian invasion of Georgia so we can see the difference.

Thanks

Not much difference (some probably not worth mentioning), certainly not in the outcome. And, since there is so little meaningful difference, the outcome was, predictably, the same. Putin understood that there would be little difference and he got the similar outcome that he knew he would get. Except what he learned enabled him to achieve that outcome much easier. The Georgian invasion actually involved war and physical losses. But, knowing that Obama wouldn't act differently than Bush, it was no difficult task to take Crimea.

One would hope that wise administrations would learn from the lessons of history. Putin did. The EU, Ukraine, the U.S., apparently, didn't.

What could Obama (the U.S.), the EU, and the Ukraine have done differently. A great deal. But that would have required a correct view of the situation, and the will to use overwhelming force against Putin's force. But that is SOOOO not 21st century. (Bush used the exact words that Kerry used--"such action is unacceptable in the 21st. century." The West used diplomacy in the Georgian thing. They choose to do the same in the Ukraine situation. Oh yeah, that was tried before WWI and WWII. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is . . .

War is hell. Either go in to the max, or don't go in at all. If you don't stand up to aggression, aggression will win. Maybe it's different now. Maybe the New World Order will seduce Russia, and China, and the Middle East, and All of Africa, and . . . to join in the economic love-fest. That is possible. Maybe not just yet. A few ethnic and religious squabbles to settle first. Like Spence says, we need a unified long term strategy. DAMN but its hard to get everybody to give up their little personality and melt into the great kumbaya.

In the meantime, Bush was an idiot and Obama is brilliant . . . and there is so little difference in much of what they do/did . . .

Bush-did-it-too, but Obama will do it better.

I hope so . . . or not. There is, in my opinion, a flaw in their fundamentals, if they have them. But the 21st century somehow is this living entity that has progressed out of war and divisive differences. It is the century in which we will all be "united," in which differences will be abolished, in which we will all be peacefully free to do those things, the rather few things, that will be left to do.

what's Putin's next strategic move.....? hmmm?

now that he's gained an inch

I think Spence is prob. still waiting for you to tell use about the failures and misjudgements.

I'd also like to hear what Pres. Obama should have done differently re Ukraine. And also pls. contrast that with what Pres. Bush did about the Russian invasion of Georgia so we can see the difference.

Thanks

Paul, I'll answer Spence after he answers the 4 or 5 of my questions directed to him that he failed to answer over the past few months. You must have missed my post complimenting Debuch on his summary of the policy failures leading up to Ukraine. My summary would be no different.
When it comes to what's happening now in the Ukraine vs what Bush did in
Georgia I'll say "What difference does it make." It's history vs the present that needs a Leader to solve the present problem.
It won't be solved by the President spending time on the Ellen DeGeneres
show trying to sell Obamacare.

Which Obama policies "prevented" the Ukraine crisis? Was it the reset? Was it telling Putin to wait till he got re-elected, and he would be more flexible then?Was it the reversal of putting anti-missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic?
Yea, the idea of world leaders trying to collaborate is pretty offensive is it not? I'd note that:

A) US/Russia relations were advancing under Medvedev including further reductions in nuclear weapons via New Start.

and...

B) Obama may have scrapped Bush's missile defense plan, but he replaced it with something just as effective or according to Robert Gates even better...

"This new approach provides a better missile-defense capability for our forces in Europe, for our European allies and eventually for our homeland than the program I recommended almost three years ago," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon after Obama spoke. [USA Today, 11/17/09]


Was it the in-your-face LGBT stuff during Sochi?

Nice, blame it on Billy Jean King. Good lord, you're starting to sound like Jim.

Was it his superior understanding about the possibility of normal, workable relations with Russia? With the fabulous working agreement about how to handle Syria's WMD? Or how Russia would co-operate against Iran working to get nuclear weapons capability? All that worked out so well. And showed Putin how strong we are and how determined to repel any threats by Russia to retake any of their old satellites . . . right?
Syria may have been clumsy at times but I think Russia was actually worried we'd take military action. They responded and now Syrian WMD is being destroyed. I'd like to hear your better solution...do nothing? Invade? How well would that have gone over?

Petty domestic undermining by opposition parties is a long standing tradition in this country, going all the way back to 1800. That anyone would take that as weakness against our adversaries is stupid. We have demonstrated those squabbles were not obstacles to our power. That is, when we actually projected power with a strong military and a don't tread on me posture. When we weren't apologetic about our strength and willingness to use it. When we didn't consider ourselves just another country which undeservedly acted like bullies, but actually considered ourselves a mighty force for good and a threat to those who crossed us.
Unfortunately we try and actually care about people. It's a bit inconsistent, but I wouldn't attempt to peg it on any one President.

I'd go back to several good books I've referenced in the past...we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary.

Emboldening our enemies by criticism during war, is another matter. No matter how much the opposition party disagrees with the war, criticizing the policies and saying we are wrong and should leave endangers our troops. Disunity in time of war emboldens the enemy and is bordering on treason.
Even on matters less than war, measurement should be taken. I guarantee you Russia looks at the position of all sides of Congress to evaluate what room the Administration has to move within. Yes there are doves and hawks, but petty disrespect is far worse.

Putin didn't invade Ukraine and take Crimea because we have petty domestic squabbles. He didn't fear us, or the EU. He invaded because he perceived a weakness. And he did that before the "Putin outmaneuvered him stuff." And Putin, apparently DID outmaneuver him. Why not get off on the truth? It's not as if Obama doesn't deserve it.
Completely disagree. This was a defensive action, and he did only what he thought he could get away with. Putin fears the EU and Nato because they will destroy the counter reforms Putin has used to maintain power.

The situation in the Ukraine was if anything the result of a failed bribe attempt. The annexation of Crimea was via intimidation. These actions have no sustainable legs. We may be very well witnessing the last flash of the USSR fading into memory...

OK, since you ask for specificity, "Name specific Obama policy decisions" that "we need" for "a unified long-term strategy."
We've already buffered our defenses with a more effective missile defense.

Looks at the unity with the EU and the impact. The Ruble is at a record low. The Russian market has dropped 10% this month. Money is flooding out of Russian banks. Their 3rd world economy is on the brink of recession.

And now Germany, perhaps the most important EU nation is warning on harsher economic sanctions.

I'd say this is being played pretty well.

-spence

Syria may have been clumsy at times but I think Russia was actually worried we'd take military action. They responded and now Syrian WMD is being destroyed.

-spence


THE HAGUE Thu Mar 6, 2014 (Reuters) - Syria will miss a major deadline next week in the program to destroy its chemical weapons production facilities, sources at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said on Thursday.

Damascus has already missed several deadlines laid out in the agreement.

"That will definitely be missed," said an official involved in discussions with Syria, referring to the March 15 deadline.

"DEADLINES IGNORED"

Syria is not taking the deadline for the destruction of production facilities seriously, another source at the OPCW said on Thursday.

"They are not doing things in the time frame they promised they would," the source said. "The process is in volatile waters."


Putin must be shaking in his boots :rotf2:

...we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary.




-spence

But several months later, the problem has not just disappeared as the president hoped it would. The American people may be no more interested in dealing with Syria today than they were last August, but at least Secretary of State John Kerry seems willing to admit, albeit privately, that the administration has been party to a complete disaster that may well come back to haunt the U.S. in a catastrophic way.

The connection to the Iran nuclear talks can’t be denied. Syria did far more than highlight the irresolution of Obama’s foreign policy. It gave a textbook illustration of the mortal dangers of weakness on the international stage. That weakness was not lost on Iran when it negotiated an interim nuclear deal in which the U.S. discarded its economic and military leverage and tacitly recognized Tehran’s “right” to enrich uranium. Just as Assad believes the current diplomatic track in Syria will not undermine his rule, so, too, his Iranian backers are understandably confident of their ability to negotiate and achieve Western recognition for their nuclear program. And just as America’s inability to act in Syria may have engendered a powerful al-Qaeda enclave there, blind faith in diplomacy is setting in motion a train of events that could lead directly to an Iranian bomb. The result of all this is not only a more dangerous Middle East but also an American homeland that is demonstrably less secure because of Obama’s continuing and uncomprehending failures.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/02/04/the-costs-of-obamas-syrian-disaster-kerry-iran-al-qaeda/

March 4, 2014 Times of Israel

President Barack Obama is a “low-IQ US president,” whose threat to launch a military offensive should nuclear talks fail is an oft-cited punchline in the Islamic Republic, particularly among children, an Iranian general said on Tuesday.

“The low-IQ US president and his country’s Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of ‘the US options on the table’ on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children,” General Masoud Jazayeri said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.

Jazayeri was responding to the US president’s interview in Bloomberg on Sunday, in which Obama maintained that the Iranian leadership should take his “all options on the table” stance — including the warning of a potential military strike — seriously.

Read more: Iranian general: Obama's threats are 'the joke of the year' | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-general-obamas-threats-are-the-joke-of-the-year/#ixzz2wYOLgKro
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook



there's a clear pattern developing

Yawn, more cut and paste. And an Israeli Neocon rag at that....

So the "low IQ Obama" is a joke among Iranian children. Are you freaking serious? You really took the time to quote that?

Lmao!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So the "low IQ Obama" is a joke among Iranian children. Are you freaking serious? You really took the time to quote that?

http://youtu.be/MpraJYnbVtE
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Syria may have been clumsy at times but I think Russia was actually worried we'd take military action.

Well that's big of you to admit. Obama says that using chemical weapons would be crossing a red line or something, they guy gasses his own people, and he's still in power? You don't think that emboldens would-be despots?

I'm not saying we should have gone to war. But you cannot say, on the international stage, that there's a line Assad better not cross, and then let him cross it without consequence.

Spence, if you warn your kids not to do something, and they do it anyway, how do you respond? By sticking your head in the sand and wishing it didn't happen?

Jeez...

"I think Russia was actually worried we'd take military action"

Putin stood by Assad through the whole thing. He stood by his ally. He was hardly afraid of what your hero was going to do. Putin through down the gauntlet, his buddy Assad faced no consequences, and Obama looked like an incompetent child in front of the entire world.

Well that's big of you to admit. Obama says that using chemical weapons would be crossing a red line or something, they guy gasses his own people, and he's still in power? You don't think that emboldens would-be despots?

I'm not saying we should have gone to war. But you cannot say, on the international stage, that there's a line Assad better not cross, and then let him cross it without consequence.

Spence, if you warn your kids not to do something, and they do it anyway, how do you respond? By sticking your head in the sand and wishing it didn't happen?

Jeez...
The result of the red line was Syria agreeing to get rid of their chemical weapons and to date a lot of that has occurred. It isn't perfect...but you can't say there wasn't a serious action.

-spence

Yea, the idea of world leaders trying to collaborate is pretty offensive is it not? I'd note that:

A) US/Russia relations were advancing under Medvedev including further reductions in nuclear weapons via New Start.

Depends on who is collaborating with whom. Collaborating with tyrants is offensive as well as stupid. They will, eventually, when they see a weakness, betray you and your "agreements." Medvedev was Putin's man. Putin was actually the true power when Medvedev was President. Every one knew that. They certainly knew that in Eastern Europe.

and...

B) Obama may have scrapped Bush's missile defense plan, but he replaced it with something just as effective or according to Robert Gates even better...

But they are not in place. The Polish SM-3IIA missile won't be in operation until 2018. And though they are somewhat better against short or intermediate range missiles, they are not as good as the previous Bush proposed SM-3GBI for long range interception. Nor are they as fast. In the interval, a window of opportunity has been given to the aggressor. And a combination of the two systems would be a more complete defense. The cost? Which is more, stopping aggression at the cost of dollars, or warring against it at the cost of more dollars and of human lives?

Syria may have been clumsy at times but I think Russia was actually worried we'd take military action. They responded and now Syrian WMD is being destroyed. I'd like to hear your better solution...do nothing? Invade? How well would that have gone over?

This is confusing. If it was wrong to invade Iraq, why would we not leave the Syrian tyrant alone? Sure, both tyrants killed 100,000+ of their own people, but they kept the militant Islamists in check. . . . Right? Should we have done a shock and awe on Assad just to scare him into giving up his WMD? We are led to believe that our abbreviated spanking of Saddam by Bush Senior helped to scare him into getting rid of his WMDs, and so it wasn't really necessary to invade Iraq and topple the whole regime. Why is it better to call for the dethroning of Assad, and have Syria be ruled by Islamists of the "radical" bent? And do we really believe that Assad is going to give up the weapons that assure his power over militants who are trying to topple him? He knows what the people did to Saddam when he was toppled. He knows what would happen to him if the Obama Administration gets its wish that he be deposed. He has been driven into the Putin camp.

Unfortunately we try and actually care about people. It's a bit inconsistent, but I wouldn't attempt to peg it on any one President.

Has this caring for people by diplomacy been revised into a new workable form? When we cared for people in the past by appeasing . . . sorry . . . "collaborating" with tyrants it led us into wars in which hundreds of thousands were killed. And it led to things like the Yalta conference where, because we cared for people so much and for the sake of their peace, we allowed the soviets to enslave nearly all of Eastern Europe and half of Germany. And 10 million Ukrainians were starved to death. We had the bomb. We had the allies, especially Churchill, and would have the Soviets really pressed us with war if we had refused to let them have their way? The peaceful, negotiated way was more "caring" for people.

I'd go back to several good books I've referenced in the past...we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary.

When did we have this art of leaning into an adversary without having the military power to do so? Can you lean into an adversary without having a big stick to back it up if they don't respond to the leaning? Doesn't being powerful and willing to use your power make it easier to lean on someone? Isn't possessing power usually NECESSARY in order to "lean"?

Even on matters less than war, measurement should be taken. I guarantee you Russia looks at the position of all sides of Congress to evaluate what room the Administration has to move within. Yes there are doves and hawks, but petty disrespect is far worse.

Aw get off this disrespect stuff! Obama has disrespected as well, if not more so, and he has been pretty petty about it. This President being the almighty one who must be bowed down to crap is tiresome. We may be almost there, but we are not yet a full-blown dictatorship. Silencing opposition on the pretext that it might give Putin a motive to make some move or other is a tyrannical way dictate American policy foreign or domestic. That is pure, dictatorial nonsense. The internal affairs of this country are not supposed to be dictated by the President. He is supposed to execute the will of Congress, not the other way around. If he bullies opponents in order to set domestic agenda, he is disrespecting the People, the Congress, the Constitution, and corrupting the office of President. He needs to get off his high horse and get down to the earth of doing his sworn duty--attend to foreign affairs and administrate CONGRESS'S budgets and bills, not demanding his own, and quit executive ordering his own agenda to bypass the will of Congress and the People.

Completely disagree. This was a defensive action, and he did only what he thought he could get away with. Putin fears the EU and Nato because they will destroy the counter reforms Putin has used to maintain power.

Right, in football parlance, the best offence is a good defense. So fear drives Putin to attack with a good defense. I like that. I think you're on to something.

The situation in the Ukraine was if anything the result of a failed bribe attempt. The annexation of Crimea was via intimidation. These actions have no sustainable legs. We may be very well witnessing the last flash of the USSR fading into memory...

That would be nice. Hope it doesn't take too long to fade.

We've already buffered our defenses with a more effective missile defense.

I guess that just was not a strong enough move. It hasn't impressed Putin enough to stop him from taking Crimea. Oh . . . He's probably not familiar with football terminology. Our "defenses" are actually an offensive move. Had he known we are not just being defensive, which I take from your insisting Putin's invasion was just defensive (weak?), had he known that we are actually on offense, he might really have been scared and left the Ukraine alone.

Looks at the unity with the EU and the impact. The Ruble is at a record low. The Russian market has dropped 10% this month. Money is flooding out of Russian banks. Their 3rd world economy is on the brink of recession.

Is all that because of Putin's weak defensive move? Hmmm. Nooo . . . that was already happening--WITHOUT HIS ACTING LIKE A BULLY. Gee, if not being defensively offensive gets you all that misery, then . . . SCREW THAT! Let me just go and take what I want. It's already bad anyway.

Of course our "economy" and especially the EU's economy are just peaches. How's that . . . you say the Fed Reserve is still pumping out quantitative easing funny money? Yeah . . . that's a sure sign of how well we're doing.

And now Germany, perhaps the most important EU nation is warning on harsher economic sanctions.

Ouch!! Geese. On top of the 3rd world brink of recession. That'll really get em. They're going economically poo anyway . . . so what's the difference?

I'd say this is being played pretty well.

-spence

Yup. It's a really good game. Enjoy.

The result of the red line was Syria agreeing to get rid of their chemical weapons and to date a lot of that has occurred. It isn't perfect...but you can't say there wasn't a serious action.

-spence

the result of the "red line" in Syria was fodder for comedians world wide and Iranian Generals apparently, the weakness of this president and his policies has emboldened these various actors and they treat him and taunt him and play him as though he's a joke......

pretty sure the guy that crossed the red line is and will remain in power and I'm not sure the chemical weapons are all that important to him... more of a nightmare for us to deal with and dispose of rather than any benefit to him...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-syria-crisis-assad-insight-idUSBREA250SD20140306

I'd say Obama is being played pretty well.

-spence


Yup. It's a really good game. Enjoy.

fixed it

I was listening to a former NBA GM recently attempting to backtrack from some comments that he'd made regarding his team throwing games in order to get a better position at draft time...after some dodging he said "I've heard it described like this .....we weren't losing on purpose...rather, we were losing "with" purpose...and there's a difference and anyone that claims we were throwing games is simply wrong"....I immediately recognized this as Spence logic......like most things Obama, this is just another mess ..but his supporters continue to claim that the mess is being brilliantly managed and criticizing the "brilliant" mess management is wrong....strange times...

And an Israeli Neocon rag at that....



'Neocon' that's one of those code words used to try to deflect isn't it?

I included a New Republic rag article for balance to the "neocons" rag

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116322/obamas-syria-policy-has-become-total-disaster

Since when does the ability to put a shine on a turd make one seem educated?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bra #^&#^&#^&#^&ing oh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd say this is being played pretty well.

-spence

Trust me, this is no game. I lived through the entire cold war and
Cuban Missile Crisis and wouldn't want anybody to be subjected to that again. :doh:

The result of the red line was Syria agreeing to get rid of their chemical weapons and to date a lot of that has occurred. It isn't perfect...but you can't say there wasn't a serious action.

-spence




"you can't say there wasn't a serious action."

Not to Assad there wasn't. He's still running the place like a tyrant. He had to give up his chemical weapons stockpile, afetr he spit in Obama's face by using them.

You really don't think Obama looked impotent during that event? Really?

I'm not saying we should have gobe to war. I'm saying Obama can't make threats and not follow through.

'Neocon' that's one of those code words used to try to deflect isn't it?

I included a New Republic rag article for balance to the "neocons" rag

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116322/obamas-syria-policy-has-become-total-disaster

I'm waiting for Nebe to chime in with "Lmao!" Maybe Spence can respond with "Yawn".

Gee, Scott, you're so cruel . . . linking a liberal rag to destroy another Obama failed or lack of policy. But wait . . . it IS a rag, so that's got to count against it. And you DID paste it--on that ground alone makes it no good. How dare you!

Unfortunately we try and actually care about people. It's a bit inconsistent, but I wouldn't attempt to peg it on any one President.

I'd go back to several good books I've referenced in the past...we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary.


I'd say this is being played pretty well.

-spence

What is talked about in the following linked article has been going on for a long time. If we "actually care about people" why are we so silent about this? If we go back to the "several good books" you've referenced in the past, would they explain how we could "lean" on those perpetrating the slaughter? Are we playing this pretty well? Or is jerking Assad around and gesturing threats at Putin so much more important? After all, the Assad and Ukraine thing will eventually exit the stage, and the opportunity for some new play acting will present itself to us. If the lives of these slaughtered Christians is so unimportant, and none of our business . . . and I'm willing to concede that may be true . . . then why do we care about Ukraine? Or the EU, which should be able to grow up and take care of itself anyway: http://www.humanevents.com/2014/03/21/why-the-media-doesnt-cover-jihadist-attacks-on-middle-east-christians/

Yea, the idea of world leaders trying to collaborate is pretty offensive is it not? I'd note that:

A) US/Russia relations were advancing under Medvedev including further reductions in nuclear weapons via New Start.

and...

B) Obama may have scrapped Bush's missile defense plan, but he replaced it with something just as effective or according to Robert Gates even better...






Nice, blame it on Billy Jean King. Good lord, you're starting to sound like Jim.


Syria may have been clumsy at times but I think Russia was actually worried we'd take military action. They responded and now Syrian WMD is being destroyed. I'd like to hear your better solution...do nothing? Invade? How well would that have gone over?


Unfortunately we try and actually care about people. It's a bit inconsistent, but I wouldn't attempt to peg it on any one President.

I'd go back to several good books I've referenced in the past...we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary.


Even on matters less than war, measurement should be taken. I guarantee you Russia looks at the position of all sides of Congress to evaluate what room the Administration has to move within. Yes there are doves and hawks, but petty disrespect is far worse.


Completely disagree. This was a defensive action, and he did only what he thought he could get away with. Putin fears the EU and Nato because they will destroy the counter reforms Putin has used to maintain power.

The situation in the Ukraine was if anything the result of a failed bribe attempt. The annexation of Crimea was via intimidation. These actions have no sustainable legs. We may be very well witnessing the last flash of the USSR fading into memory...


We've already buffered our defenses with a more effective missile defense.

Looks at the unity with the EU and the impact. The Ruble is at a record low. The Russian market has dropped 10% this month. Money is flooding out of Russian banks. Their 3rd world economy is on the brink of recession.

And now Germany, perhaps the most important EU nation is warning on harsher economic sanctions.

I'd say this is being played pretty well.

-spence

"we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary."

(1) that art of leaning into an adversary, really only works when the adversary isn't a raving lunatic. Unfortunately for your pacifism, there are a few of those out there. Diplomacy will not work with some of them.

(2) that art of diplomacy doesn't do much to help the little Syrian kid being gassed to death by a guy who was specifically warned by your hero not to do that.

Afghanistan was not a quick-fix, but a response to an attack. You may have heard something about that attack, if not, I can also refer you to some books.

As to Iraq, the use of force was approved by the US Senate. The list of Senators voting for the use of force, included the following right wing neo-cons: Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer.....all right-wing nutjobs I suppose? If you have no use for those who lean towards militaristic quick-fixes, and you were referring to Iraq, can we all assume you won't be voting for Hilary?

You're not making this very hard anymore.

I'm waiting for Nebe to chime in with "Lmao!" Maybe Spence can respond with "Yawn".

Gee, Scott, you're so cruel . . . linking a liberal rag to destroy another Obama failed or lack of policy. But wait . . . it IS a rag, so that's got to count against it. And you DID paste it--on that ground alone makes it no good. How dare you!

yup, funny how those who dwell in personal opinion descend into yawns and you tube videos(isn't that essentially "cut and paste"?) when you attempt to include some facts in the conversation or point out the obvious flaws in their opinions, seems juvenile for such highly educated intellectuals....the self and mutually ordained brightest among us

"we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary" = nonsense...but it probably sounded really smart and highly educated to some:)

"we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary."

Soft power loses most effectiveness without hard power to be an alternative / leverage.

With Political Hacks in key leading positions in an administration that disregard history, operational art is not at the table to lean in on.

Soft power loses most effectiveness without hard power to be an alternative /

Could not agree more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John Kerry is such an awesome SOS.

With Political Hacks in key leading positions in an administration that disregard history, operational art is not at the table to lean in on.

c'mon now...Biden, Kerry, Mich and the girls and Dennis Rodman are probably the finest foreign policy team ever assembled by an American President...

I'd say this is being played pretty well.:)

What is talked about in the following linked article has been going on for a long time. If we "actually care about people" why are we so silent about this? If we go back to the "several good books" you've referenced in the past, would they explain how we could "lean" on those perpetrating the slaughter? Are we playing this pretty well? Or is jerking Assad around and gesturing threats at Putin so much more important? After all, the Assad and Ukraine thing will eventually exit the stage, and the opportunity for some new play acting will present itself to us. If the lives of these slaughtered Christians is so unimportant, and none of our business . . . and I'm willing to concede that may be true . . . then why do we care about Ukraine? Or the EU, which should be able to grow up and take care of itself anyway: http://www.humanevents.com/2014/03/21/why-the-media-doesnt-cover-jihadist-attacks-on-middle-east-christians/
Interesting article, though I think the author is just trying to project his opinion and spin everything around it to fit.

I've seen plenty of reporting about the suffering of Christian minorities, especially in the past few years with the Arab Spring. I can't think of the last time I read anything on Palestinian suffering.

The characterization of violence toward Israel as "radical Islam" fails to note something pretty important...that the conflict in Palestine didn't really start that way. His argument then over a false "grievance" totally ignores that Israel has brought a lot of their problem upon themselves.

This isn't a product of a biased media, it's a product of history.

I think there certainly is a grievance out there but much of it is toward Cold War institutions that led to little progress in Islamic nations.

Then again, I don't see the media reporting on this either...but hey, blame the media...I'm sure you could spin anything to make it stick.

-spence

Interesting article, though I think the author is just trying to project his opinion and spin everything around it to fit.

-spence

heh...heh...:smash:

(1) that art of leaning into an adversary, really only works when the adversary isn't a raving lunatic. Unfortunately for your pacifism, there are a few of those out there. Diplomacy will not work with some of them.
Putin isn't a lunatic, he's just unpredictable and has really consolidated power.

Leaning into an adversary isn't a form of pacifism, but it requires a long-term strategy. In one breath you'll talk tough and in the next say you're not advocating for war. Which is it?

(2) that art of diplomacy doesn't do much to help the little Syrian kid being gassed to death by a guy who was specifically warned by your hero not to do that.
Sure it can with enough unity. Obama's biggest problem early with Syria wasn't drawing a line, it was not having enough global support.

Afghanistan was not a quick-fix, but a response to an attack. You may have heard something about that attack, if not, I can also refer you to some books.

As to Iraq, the use of force was approved by the US Senate. The list of Senators voting for the use of force, included the following right wing neo-cons: Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer.....all right-wing nutjobs I suppose? If you have no use for those who lean towards militaristic quick-fixes, and you were referring to Iraq, can we all assume you won't be voting for Hilary?
What? This is all news to me...

You're not making this very hard anymore.

So at one time it was hard? Please let me know, I'd like to relive some of those sweet sweet memories.

-spence

"we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary."

Soft power loses most effectiveness without hard power to be an alternative / leverage.

With Political Hacks in key leading positions in an administration that disregard history, operational art is not at the table to lean in on.
Thanks Mr. Obvious.

When was the last time we DIDN'T have political hacks in key leading positions that disregard history?

-spence

Interesting article, though I think the author is just trying to project his opinion and spin everything around it to fit.


-spence

the author provides quite a bit of substantiation to back up his opinion(s)....whereas you perpetually opine and spin with no substantiation whatsoever :uhuh: just read back through your own posts:)

Thanks Mr. Obvious.

When was the last time we DIDN'T have political hacks in key leading positions that disregard history?

-spence

SecState and their roles prior:

Admin

Obama
Kerry - Politician, Senator
Clinton - Politician, Senator

Bush

Rice - National Security Adviser, Professor, National Security Council,
Powell - 4 Star General (CJCS)

Clinton

Albright - UN Ambassador, National Security Council (Staff), Foreign Affairs Adviser
Christopher - Deputy Sec State, Deputy Attorney General, Diplomat

Bush

Eagleburger - Career Diplomat
Baker - National Security Council (Staff), Treasury Secratary

Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
What is talked about in the following linked article has been going on for a long time. If we "actually care about people" why are we so silent about this? If we go back to the "several good books" you've referenced in the past, would they explain how we could "lean" on those perpetrating the slaughter? Are we playing this pretty well? Or is jerking Assad around and gesturing threats at Putin so much more important? After all, the Assad and Ukraine thing will eventually exit the stage, and the opportunity for some new play acting will present itself to us. If the lives of these slaughtered Christians is so unimportant, and none of our business . . . and I'm willing to concede that may be true . . . then why do we care about Ukraine? Or the EU, which should be able to grow up and take care of itself anyway: http://www.humanevents.com/2014/03/2...st-christians/

Interesting article, though I think the author is just trying to project his opinion and spin everything around it to fit.

I'm not so interested in the author's "spin." I'm curious why, if as you say we "actually care about people" we seem so little caring about this slaughtering? Even when there were slaughterings in Ruanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi there was more concern and interventions. And there are slaughters going on throughout the world, but we are really geared up and huffing and puffing about the Ukraine, which didn't even involve slaughter. Why so concerned about them and the EU which SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAND UP TO PUTIN ON THEIR OWN, but we are not so concerned about the Christians, and yet we supposedly "actually care about people"?

I've seen plenty of reporting about the suffering of Christian minorities, especially in the past few years with the Arab Spring. I can't think of the last time I read anything on Palestinian suffering.

Well, we have certainly intervened, long and diligently, on the Palestinian suffering. But little to nothing on the Christian stuff. If we "actually care about people," how come?

The characterization of violence toward Israel as "radical Islam" fails to note something pretty important...that the conflict in Palestine didn't really start that way. His argument then over a false "grievance" totally ignores that Israel has brought a lot of their problem upon themselves.

Omigosh, I bring up the unconcern for Christian slaughter and you dive into an unrelated dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. That fight has gone on for centuries. The Christian thing is a new and wide spread phenomenon. WE HAVE AND ARE ATTEMPTING to deal with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Why not with the Christian slaughter. Why the Ukraine, not the Christian thing, if we "actually care about people"? How about imposing sanctions on nations which allow Christian slaughter? Maybe we can freeze the assets of their leaders? If we "actually care about people."

This isn't a product of a biased media, it's a product of history.

I wasn't merely referring to media, nor calling it biased. I was referring to the "we" who supposedly, as you put it ,"actually care about people." Which includes our government.

And I like that "product of history" stuff. Very progressive. It's an example of you exuding progressivism rather than expounding on it. Media is an actual active entity which can produce results through its intellectual coercion. How does "history" do that. Isn't history a recount and description of the past by actual humans, not an actual active entity in and of itself which produces.

I think there certainly is a grievance out there but much of it is toward Cold War institutions that led to little progress in Islamic nations.

Again, not answering the question--why do we care for Ukraine and not the Christians if we "actually care about people?"

Then again, I don't see the media reporting on this either...but hey, blame the media...I'm sure you could spin anything to make it stick.

-spence

I am not blaming anything or anybody. I am asking you a question. And you spin around it so the question does not stick.