Ukraine

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by 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..

[nightfighter]

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.

[justplugit]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

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?

[buckman]

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

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

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...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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...

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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).

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Raven]

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

now that he's gained an inch

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[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

[spence]

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?

[Nebe]

Lmao!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[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]

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

[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

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/1...total-disaster

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[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.