Ukraine

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

...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/20...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...#ixzz2wYOLgKro
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook



there's a clear pattern developing

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[scottw]

I'd say Obama is being played pretty well.

-spence

Originally Posted by detbuch

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...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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/...A250SD20140306

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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/2014/03/2...st-christians/

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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'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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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 just read back through your own posts

[detbuch]

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/

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(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