|
Post by Cuchulain on Mar 1, 2014 20:44:36 GMT -5
Obama to Putin:
|
|
|
Post by highmc2 on Mar 1, 2014 20:48:37 GMT -5
What would our prestigious keyboard diplomats or Secretary of State's do in this situation? Complaints and criticism are just a fart in the wind without alternative ideas. What would you do different? What would Kennedy do? What would Reagan have done? What could have been done different was just about everything, at this point he would be better off not drawing anymore red lines, no one believes him anymore. Kind of like no one believes the house when they try to negotiate with Obama. I bet if the house had stood firm Obama would have caved to them, as it stands now they are the only ones he stands firm with. Okay, no redlines. So you are in favor of a non-interventionalist foreign policy (aka Ron/Rand Paul)? Many would consider no response would be weaker then a "line in the sand" approach.
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Mar 1, 2014 20:55:53 GMT -5
Love you too. My point should have been why can't we criticize the current president without bringing up Kennedy or Reagan. Honestly, I wished we had another Reagan as president. My point is that no other President would be able to do much more given the same circumstances. I also asked what you would do/ or should have done differently in this fluid situation? What exactly are you criticizing about Obama's handling of the situation? I beg to differ. Reagan took the oath of office on 20 January 1981 and within minutes, the hostages were released by Iran. Reagan would never permit our Nation to be in the same circumstances as the the feckless, cowardly and velvet fist in the iron glove foreign policy that has been the hallmark of the Obama years has placed us now. Our enemies probe with the bayonet - when they find soft flesh, they proceed and when they find iron, they withdraw. Obama was all but sodomized in the Syria mess and he's set himself up for a repeat embarrassment in the Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by highmc2 on Mar 1, 2014 21:02:13 GMT -5
My point is that no other President would be able to do much more given the same circumstances. I also asked what you would do/ or should have done differently in this fluid situation? What exactly are you criticizing about Obama's handling of the situation? I beg to differ. Reagan took the oath of office on 20 January 1981 and within minutes, the hostages were released by Iran. Reagan would never permit our Nation to be in the same circumstances as the the feckless, cowardly and velvet fist in the iron glove foreign policy that has been the hallmark of the Obama years has placed us now. Our enemies probe with the bayonet - when they find soft flesh, they proceed and when they find iron, they withdraw. Obama was all but sodomized in the Syria mess and he's set himself up for a repeat embarrassment in the Ukraine. Reagan negotiated with the Soviets, and was terrified at the prospect of nuclear war. Do you believe the US should intervene militarily in the Ukraine or even Syria?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 21:07:36 GMT -5
Obama is talking but Putin is taking.
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Mar 1, 2014 21:16:34 GMT -5
I beg to differ. Reagan took the oath of office on 20 January 1981 and within minutes, the hostages were released by Iran. Reagan would never permit our Nation to be in the same circumstances as the the feckless, cowardly and velvet fist in the iron glove foreign policy that has been the hallmark of the Obama years has placed us now. Our enemies probe with the bayonet - when they find soft flesh, they proceed and when they find iron, they withdraw. Obama was all but sodomized in the Syria mess and he's set himself up for a repeat embarrassment in the Ukraine. Reagan negotiated with the Soviets, and was terrified at the prospect of nuclear war. Do you believe the US should intervene militarily in the Ukraine or even Syria? No and no. So why is this homme manque drawing silly "red lines?" Reagan presided over the undoing of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Vlad the Impaler considers the dissolution of the USSR the biggest strategic disaster of the 20th Century, and he is dedicated to restoring it as a Greater Russia.
|
|
|
Post by highmc2 on Mar 1, 2014 21:22:41 GMT -5
Obama is talking but Putin is taking. This is a perfect example of the Founders warning about "entangling foreign alliances". It is Russia's issue, but the alliance makes lip-service necessary. Are you willing to send your son's to fight over the Ukraine? The Russians are not going to give up their Black Sea port. Or is it better to rattle some sabres and put tariffs on caviar and vodka?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 1, 2014 21:25:54 GMT -5
Obama tells Putin his actions are 'clear violation' of Ukraine's sovereignty The United States in the coming hours and days will talk with allies and partners in the UN Security Council and others and suspend upcoming participation in preparatory meetings for the G-8 summit on Sochi, Russia, the White House also said. Earlier in the day, White House officials huddled in a high-level meeting to work on a response to Russia's efforts to move military forces into neighboring Ukraine, as Capitol Hill leaders pledged support for the Ukrainians and called on Obama to order an immediate U.S. response.The meeting came hours after Russia's parliament gave President Vladimir Putin the military go-ahead to protect Russian interests in neighboring Ukraine. Among those gathered at the White House were Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, CIA Director John Brennan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Obama warned Russia on Friday that "there will be costs" for any military maneuvers that Russian undertook in Ukraine.www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/01/white-house-meets-congress-urges-action-in-wake-russia-ukraine-moves/I don't see US involvement being a possibility here. Putin will not take anything Obama says seriously. And for good reason - Obama's a lot of hot air. Obama's demonstrated that he will not lead anything or anyone anywhere; that his threats are meaningless; and that his diplomats are incompetent. Weakness invites conflict because aggressive world leaders - like Putin - know that their aggression will not be met, and that they will not be held accountable. And Putin is right. The reason the US will not get involved is because Obama doesn't think it's proper that the US should throw it's weight around. In a sense, he's right. It's time for the other western democracies to carry some of the burden. The Europeans should have this. But they probably won't either. What Russia is probably about to do to Ukraine will likely be a crime against humanity. I hope the rest of the world scolds us for not doing anything to stop it... and, more importantly, I hope we loudly and firmly rebuke the rest of the world for not carrying their own weight.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 1, 2014 21:55:45 GMT -5
What would our prestigious keyboard diplomats or Secretary of State's do in this situation? Complaints and criticism are just a fart in the wind without alternative ideas. What would you do different? What would Kennedy do? What would Reagan have done? First, neither Reagan nor Kennedy would have let things deteriorate to the point that we are the kid waiting for the bully to steal our lunch money. Second, If The Puppet weren't nothing but a community extortionist, he could put ABMs back in Poland, and even the Balkans. He could stand up the troops in Croatia, and could put Sigonella on DEFCON 2. He could also start a carrier group towards the Black Sea, or even just to Turkey. Of course, he won't do any of those, because he hasn't a clue, and after his purges of the military, there aren't any top officers left that either can, or are willing to, tell him what he should do.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 1, 2014 21:58:30 GMT -5
Love you too. My point should have been why can't we criticize the current president without bringing up Kennedy or Reagan. Honestly, I wished we had another Reagan as president. My point is that no other President would be able to do much more given the same circumstances. I also asked what you would do/ or should have done differently in this fluid situation? What exactly are you criticizing about Obama's handling of the situation? Not many other Presidents would have allowed the situation, or the US, to deteriorate to the point that this would happen. He let this happen, through his abject weakness, and his utter incompetence, and now has no idea what to do about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 22:00:44 GMT -5
What would our prestigious keyboard diplomats or Secretary of State's do in this situation? Complaints and criticism are just a fart in the wind without alternative ideas. What would you do different? What would Kennedy do? What would Reagan have done? Avoid threatening language over something we cannot do anything about, and issue a mildly worded diplomatic condemnation. We're not going to go to war over Ukraine- and Barry's histrionic speeches only make him, and us, look foolish.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 1, 2014 22:03:18 GMT -5
I'd say that the United States and Russia are at more of a diplomatic crossroads than on the path to military conflict. And the "dip"lomat we have to send is the gigolo Kerry. Another Mama's boy that's never held a job in his life, and even his "military experience" is questionable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 22:03:26 GMT -5
I beg to differ. Reagan took the oath of office on 20 January 1981 and within minutes, the hostages were released by Iran. Reagan would never permit our Nation to be in the same circumstances as the the feckless, cowardly and velvet fist in the iron glove foreign policy that has been the hallmark of the Obama years has placed us now. Our enemies probe with the bayonet - when they find soft flesh, they proceed and when they find iron, they withdraw. Obama was all but sodomized in the Syria mess and he's set himself up for a repeat embarrassment in the Ukraine. Reagan negotiated with the Soviets, and was terrified at the prospect of nuclear war. Do you believe the US should intervene militarily in the Ukraine or even Syria? You don't talk like you're going to intervene if you have no intention to do so. That's the mistake in Syria, and the mistake now. Barry's puppet just got talking about military cuts-- they have on intention of using muscle here, and the world knows it. Nothing worse than threatening to bite someone after you've set your dentures on the table.
|
|
|
Post by highmc2 on Mar 1, 2014 22:03:44 GMT -5
McCain's proposed response. news.yahoo.com/mccain-punish-putin-000600943--politics.htmlMcCain wants the administration to expand its threat to pull out of the G8 Summit in Sochi scheduled for June. Next, McCain wants the administration to more broadly apply a law that enables the U.S. government to sanction Russian officials guilty of human rights violations. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act, which Obama signed into law in 2012, has so far only been used against low-level Russian officials. After that, McCain wants the Obama administration to reverse its decision to scuttle missile defense plans for Eastern Europe, plans that Putin objected to strongly. Lastly, McCain argues that the Obama administration should work with NATO to speed up the process through which Georgia (invaded by Russia in 2008) could move towards joining the defense alliance.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 1, 2014 22:06:01 GMT -5
McCain's proposed response. news.yahoo.com/mccain-punish-putin-000600943--politics.htmlMcCain wants the administration to expand its threat to pull out of the G8 Summit in Sochi scheduled for June. Next, McCain wants the administration to more broadly apply a law that enables the U.S. government to sanction Russian officials guilty of human rights violations. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act, which Obama signed into law in 2012, has so far only been used against low-level Russian officials. After that, McCain wants the Obama administration to reverse its decision to scuttle missile defense plans for Eastern Europe, plans that Putin objected to strongly. Lastly, McCain argues that the Obama administration should work with NATO to speed up the process through which Georgia (invaded by Russia in 2008) could move towards joining the defense alliance. All of which are options, none of which will The Puppet do, except, maybe, pull out of the G8.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 22:13:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 1, 2014 22:26:54 GMT -5
Crimea is the base for Russia's Black Sea Fleet. There is absolutely no way that the Russians would not move to secure that strategic location. It would be similar to Hawaii breaking away from the US with our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Unless the Russians start shooting and moving on Kiev there is little the US can do no matter the President. Look for some sanctions and tough talk. Too bad the Olympics are over and we can't punish the athletes with a boycott. Absolutely. Logic says, this is resolved by splitting the Crimea from Ukraine. I know that sounds like "peace in our time," but reality is what counts. Note that we still have Gitmo, in spite of Castro's revolution. Frankly, Russia needs the Crimea more than we need Guantanomo Bay. (sp?) Putin will hold it, with arms-- and a stand-off is all he needs. Ukraine can't stand against the Russian army.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 1, 2014 22:37:38 GMT -5
What would our prestigious keyboard diplomats or Secretary of State's do in this situation? Complaints and criticism are just a fart in the wind without alternative ideas. What would you do different? What would Kennedy do? What would Reagan have done? This keyboard diplomat is damned glad nobody requires her to make public pronouncements about things happening overseas, with the full faith and credit of the US government behind them. But then, Obama and the folks at State all wanted the job--badly. That means they should think before they make pronouncements like "there will be consequences." (Obama's speech last week.) Really, couldn't he have just said, "The world is watching, and hoping for a peaceful outcome with lots of flowery adjectives and glittering generalities?" Words matter in diplomacy, especially when directed at someone like Putin, who isn't buying any wolf tickets.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 1, 2014 22:57:36 GMT -5
McCain's proposed response. news.yahoo.com/mccain-punish-putin-000600943--politics.htmlMcCain wants the administration to expand its threat to pull out of the G8 Summit in Sochi scheduled for June. Next, McCain wants the administration to more broadly apply a law that enables the U.S. government to sanction Russian officials guilty of human rights violations. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act, which Obama signed into law in 2012, has so far only been used against low-level Russian officials. After that, McCain wants the Obama administration to reverse its decision to scuttle missile defense plans for Eastern Europe, plans that Putin objected to strongly. Lastly, McCain argues that the Obama administration should work with NATO to speed up the process through which Georgia (invaded by Russia in 2008) could move towards joining the defense alliance. Actually, these are doable. An editorial in the WSJ suggested that all the world leaders kick Putin out of the G8 summit. Given that this is about keeping Ukraine as part of Europe, European leaders should be "leading" that effort. The US boycotting alone smacks too much of: "I'll take my football and go home." Reinstating the original missle defense plans would, also, be a reasonable move-- kinda payback for Russia quietly moving a waship to Havanna (per yesterday's WAPO.) Obama could, also, okay the Keystone Pipeline, with a general speech about regimes that are kept in power by high oil prices. (No need to name names; they know who they are.) I'd leave Georgia out of it-- deal with one problem at a time. Oh, and btw, Ukraine needs some 27-35 billion dollars (depending on which article you read.) A coalition of first world nations should come up with that. If Ukraine is to be the buffer between Russia and Europe, then the US contribution need not be overly large. Remember, this mess began when Putin offered money to the, now unseated, Ukrainian government.
|
|
|
Post by highmc2 on Mar 1, 2014 23:11:19 GMT -5
What would our prestigious keyboard diplomats or Secretary of State's do in this situation? Complaints and criticism are just a fart in the wind without alternative ideas. What would you do different? What would Kennedy do? What would Reagan have done? This keyboard diplomat is damned glad nobody requires her to make public pronouncements about things happening overseas, with the full faith and credit of the US government behind them. But then, Obama and the folks at State all wanted the job--badly. That means they should think before they make pronouncements like "there will be consequences." (Obama's speech last week.) Really, couldn't he have just said, "The world is watching, and hoping for a peaceful outcome with lots of flowery adjectives and glittering generalities?" Words matter in diplomacy, especially when directed at someone like Putin, who isn't buying any wolf tickets. It seems that most believe that "redlines" and "lines in the sand" are ineffective diplomatic policies for situations that don't directly involve US interests. Is the US moving toward a non-interventionalist foreign policy? Will the GOP accept a Rand Paul in 2016?
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 1, 2014 23:12:55 GMT -5
Kennedy and Reagan are dead so it is pointless to wonder what they would do. I love you Mom, however most historians agree that JFK, had he lived, would have been reelected and would never committed us to a land war in Southeast Asia.
Reagan lived long enough to give that "Tear Down This Wall" speech which in part, led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Reagan was dealing with a Soviet Union whose economy had rotted from within. Between the Communist system being unable to support a first-world lifestyle and all the Cold War proxy wars, world-wide, the USSR was broke. The Afghaistan adventure exposed the reality of their situation. Change was already in the wind before Reagan ever came into office. The "tear down this wall" speech didn't lead to any dissoulution. It sure wouldn't have worked when JFK was in office. (Remember the Berlin air-lift?) Nobody can say what JFK would have done in SE Asia. Remember, he did send "advisors." Besides, LBJ promised: "No American boy will die doing a job Asian boys should do." How'd that work out? (The domino theory was alive and well in US diplomacy, after all.) That aside, history's lovely, but we have to work with today. And, in today's Russia, the kleptocrats have managed to get oil and gas flowing. With oil priced @ ~ $100/bbl (compared to $6-$8 during Reagan's time), Russia has cash. Putin can easily afford to annex the Crimea, even if world opinion would rather he not declare a war of conquest on all of Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 1, 2014 23:24:08 GMT -5
What would our prestigious keyboard diplomats or Secretary of State's do in this situation? Complaints and criticism are just a fart in the wind without alternative ideas. What would you do different? What would Kennedy do? What would Reagan have done? What could have been done different was just about everything, at this point he would be better off not drawing anymore red lines, no one believes him anymore. Kind of like no one believes the house when they try to negotiate with Obama. I bet if the house had stood firm Obama would have caved to them, as it stands now they are the only ones he stands firm with. Yes, the "red line" in Syria was a gaffe that is too well remembered. It will color everything going foreward well into future administrations. (Anyone else old enough to recall the days after JFK's "red line" about the USSR putting missiles in Cuba? He COULD NOT back down-- and he didn't. That was a frightening time.) Obama's lifting of sanctions on Iran, just when they'd brought them the the negotiating table, with so little yielded, is also troubling. It makes any economic sanctions the world places on Putin problematic. As for caving to the House? Never. They are Republicans, and therefore, unlike Putin, the Enemy. Putin and the Iranian Ayatollahs are FRIENDS in comparison. (Remember, Putin has already been promised more "flexibility" after Obama's re-election. The re-annexation of the Ukraine may well be part of it.)
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 1, 2014 23:28:01 GMT -5
What could have been done different was just about everything, at this point he would be better off not drawing anymore red lines, no one believes him anymore. Kind of like no one believes the house when they try to negotiate with Obama. I bet if the house had stood firm Obama would have caved to them, as it stands now they are the only ones he stands firm with. Yes, the "red line" in Syria was a gaffe that is too well remembered. It will color everything going foreward well into future administrations. (Anyone else old enough to recall the days after JFK's "red line" about the USSR putting missiles in Cuba? He COULD NOT back down-- and he didn't. That was a frightening time.) Obama's lifting of sanctions on Iran, just when they'd brought them the the negotiating table, with so little yielded, is also troubling. It makes any economic sanctions the world places on Putin problematic. As for caving to the House? Never. They are Republicans, and therefore, unlike Putin, the Enemy. Putin and the Iranian Ayatollahs are FRIENDS in comparison. (Remember, Putin has already been promised more "flexibility" after Obama's re-election. The re-annexation of the Ukraine may well be part of it.) It really is startling how willing Obama is to negotiate with Ayatollahs and other thuggish world leaders; and how unwilling he is to talk to Congress. Then again, it's getting clearer and clearer every day that Obama has more in common with the world's tyrants than he does with elected representatives of the people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 23:51:08 GMT -5
I'd say that the United States and Russia are at more of a diplomatic crossroads than on the path to military conflict. And the "dip"lomat we have to send is the gigolo Kerry. Another Mama's boy that's never held a job in his life, and even his "military experience" is questionable. If our foreign policy is to bore our adversaries to death, then Kerry is the obvious choice. People tend to be much less aggressive when they're slumbering.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 1, 2014 23:57:12 GMT -5
This keyboard diplomat is damned glad nobody requires her to make public pronouncements about things happening overseas, with the full faith and credit of the US government behind them. But then, Obama and the folks at State all wanted the job--badly. That means they should think before they make pronouncements like "there will be consequences." (Obama's speech last week.) Really, couldn't he have just said, "The world is watching, and hoping for a peaceful outcome with lots of flowery adjectives and glittering generalities?" Words matter in diplomacy, especially when directed at someone like Putin, who isn't buying any wolf tickets. It seems that most believe that "redlines" and "lines in the sand" are ineffective diplomatic policies for situations that don't directly involve US interests. Is the US moving toward a non-interventionalist foreign policy? Will the GOP accept a Rand Paul in 2016? I don't think Rand Paul could win the general. He's not centrist enough. We should remember that more people read the NYT and the WAPO than any libertarian-leaning websites. (Hell, more people probably watch cable TV cooking shows.) "Red lines" and "lines in the sand" are ineffective unless one has carefully thought through what will happen once said lines are crossed. Think of Colin Powell's rules of warfare-- know your objective before you begin. Gunboat diplomacy only works if you have the gunboats in place, and the receiving party understands you intend to use them. Putin understands this. Note that his first move was to march 150,000 troops to Ukraine's border for "exercises." And, everyone knows he used them in Georgia. That makes him the "TR" in this scenario. Are we becoming "non-interventionist?" That's always been a thread in US culture. However, we should recall that the British Navy protected international shipping and trade (and "human rights"), back when we didn't. We eagerly embraced the role of "superpower" post WWII. Now, if we don't, who will? Frankly, I'm more interested in the European response. All of central Europe (Poland, the Baltic states, the Balkins, Hungary, et al) worries about being re-conquered by Russia--with the blessings of the major western nations. This would be a good time to be just one of a coalition, "leading from behind." If Russia invades Ukraine? Maybe that's a Spanish Civil War kind of problem. Americans who feel strongly about human rights can go fight-- and, maybe, we get some good novels out of it. *sigh*
|
|