Originally Posted by spence (Post 1036086)

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

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1036098)

'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/1...total-disaster

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1036067)

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

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1036067)

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

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1036168)

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!

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1036247)

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

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1036247)

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

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1036175)

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/

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1036311)

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

-spence

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1036179)

(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.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1036247)

"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.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1036311)

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


-spence

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1036315)

Thanks Mr. Obvious.

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

-spence

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1036311)

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