|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Mar 2, 2014 0:18:09 GMT -5
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. Not so....the ayatollahs don't have a short game and I'll bet barry kicks ass in the ncaa bracket picks. I'm just thankful barry had the foresight to pick joltin' joe, with his years of foreign policy experience and gravitas, as his veep. Confidence is high.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 0:31:56 GMT -5
That would certainly be the capstone on Obama's long list of failures. What can Barry possibly do? Embargo? Blockade? Charge the Russians for their diplomatic tags? I'm thinking that Obama is the weakest President since Jimmy Carter. Maybe he can threaten to "fix" Russia's healthcare system.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 1:59:18 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? The answer is simple, anybody that has bothered to study anything at all on Russia's current revitalization would see that only thing that allows Russia to pay it's bills, revitalize it's military and exert any influence in the world today is profits it makes on gas and oil exports. If the ex-superpower known as the US would have been allowed to develop Keystone and recover resources from government land they would have been able to flood the world's energy markets with enough oil and gas to cause a reduction of 20 to 30 percent in energy prices thereby reducing if not eliminating Russia's influence on world affairs, reducing the influence of the middle eastern states, reduce funding to terrorist organizations and elevate the ex-superpower known as the US economy without firing a shot, which is exactly how Reagan won the first cold war. Instead certain ruling factions in the ex-superpower known as the US chose to instead decrease energy production, reduce the military to pre-world war two strength levels, increase the national debt to all time highs, increase spending on failed social programs to all time levels, lie to it's citizens, spy on it's citizens, use powerful government agencies to intimidate and destroy it's political opponents, reduce it's influence world wide by "leading from behind", abandon it's allies and issue empty threats that friend and foe alike laugh at. These certain factions also chose to abandon gains made by it's military in two regrettable wars thereby sacrificing the blood and body parts of it's horribly over extended military for nothing and sentencing the two nations populations to a decade plus of pointless suffering and internal strife that will last for generations to come along with sowing the seeds of hatred and violence against the ex-superpower known as the US that will also last generations to come. Now there is Hope and Change you can believe in.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Mar 2, 2014 4:15:50 GMT -5
Russia Escalates Crisis in Ukraine... Sets stage for showdown... West looks 'weak'... FEAR OF NEW COLD WAR GROWS... Moscow catches world off guard... REPORT: Obama Skips National Security Team Meeting... drudgereport.com/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 7:11:48 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. Bingo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 9:20:12 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. To me it is no different then the use of the red line phrase when it was Syria. Putin is not worried about consequences from Obama.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 9:28:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alienrace on Mar 2, 2014 10:40:48 GMT -5
Um, Obama is an idiot for saying anything.
We need to stay out of the Ukraine crap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 11:13:35 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. To me it is no different then the use of the red line phrase when it was Syria. Putin is not worried about consequences from Obama. To be fair, I believe that there is a a significant difference between the "Red Line" statement and the latest "consequences" one. Of course there will be consequences, the West will have a hissy fit, stamp their feet, employ some sanctions/embargoes etc, not turn up at the G8 conference and whatever. You are right about one thing Putin will not be worried about any of it, his Black Sea fleet based in the Crimea is far, far more important to him than any Western tantrums and crocodile tears.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 2, 2014 11:44:02 GMT -5
Putin still remembers his days in the KGB and how powerful and feared the Soviet Union was. He's doing what he can to rebuild that. Ukraine had better resolve itself to the loss of the Crimea. Obama is a joke when he makes pronouncements of "consequences" - Putin doesn't take him seriously. Here's a guy that ran an elite spy agency, the KGB, that was very effective. Against a community organizer. But even if Obama wasn't a joke, there's little the United States could do about it.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Mar 2, 2014 12:26:27 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. To me it is no different then the use of the red line phrase when it was Syria. Putin is not worried about consequences from Obama. that's the problem, barry doesn't scare anybody. The USA is very disrespected worldwide under him. I was very young when the Cuban Missile Crisis was happening and my parents were preping our basement for survival.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 12:48:57 GMT -5
To me it is no different then the use of the red line phrase when it was Syria. Putin is not worried about consequences from Obama. To be fair, I believe that there is a a significant difference between the "Red Line" statement and the latest "consequences" one. Of course there will be consequences, the West will have a hissy fit, stamp their feet, employ some sanctions/embargoes etc, not turn up at the G8 conference and whatever. You are right about one thing Putin will not be worried about any of it, his Black Sea fleet based in the Crimea is far, far more important to him than any Western tantrums and crocodile tears. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 2, 2014 16:14:25 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 wonder how many of these foreign policy experts cheered on the war in Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 2, 2014 16:17:50 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 was an actor and a goof. He wasn't some big brave warrior like some want to remember. And now big bad Russia is at it again. What is it, only 25 years since the wall went down and we declared victory in the Cold War? Some victory..
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Mar 2, 2014 16:20:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Mar 2, 2014 16:23:07 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 was an actor and a goof. He wasn't some big brave warrior like some want to remember. And now big bad Russia is at it again. What is it, only 25 years since the wall went down and we declared victory in the Cold War? Some victory.. Once again, Reagan brought back respect and made you proud to be American. After 4 years of Carter and his malaise .....
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 2, 2014 16:29:08 GMT -5
So you're a gun totin' Putin fan? Or just picking a foreign country's leader over our president because of partisan tendencies? What will happen when the dust clears and you repubs realize that no one thinks like you, and doesn't see Obama as the 100% loser you repubs paint him as? Maybe instead of counting on your negativity campaign to discredit Obama as your only reason to vote republican, you guys can become part if out country again and actually start coming up with positives to further the idea America will move forward.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 2, 2014 16:29:42 GMT -5
Reagan was an actor and a goof. He wasn't some big brave warrior like some want to remember. And now big bad Russia is at it again. What is it, only 25 years since the wall went down and we declared victory in the Cold War? Some victory.. Once again, Reagan brought back respect and made you proud to be American. After 4 years of Carter and his malaise ..... Um no he didn't . And Russia is back, baby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 16:40:35 GMT -5
Reagan was an actor and a goof. He wasn't some big brave warrior like some want to remember. And now big bad Russia is at it again. What is it, only 25 years since the wall went down and we declared victory in the Cold War? Some victory.. Once again, Reagan brought back respect and made you proud to be American. After 4 years of Carter and his malaise ..... I don't recall Reagan drawing red lines or threatening with empty consequences.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Mar 2, 2014 16:44:32 GMT -5
Once again, Reagan brought back respect and made you proud to be American. After 4 years of Carter and his malaise ..... Um no he didn't . And Russia is back, baby. The Russian Mob is back....
As someone who lived thru those days Reagan was welcomed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 16:49:15 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 was an actor and a goof. He wasn't some big brave warrior like some want to remember. And now big bad Russia is at it again. What is it, only 25 years since the wall went down and we declared victory in the Cold War? Some victory.. Like him or not--and you obviously don't--what Reagan did was dramatically change the mindset in regard to the Soviet Union.
What plagued Carter was an increasingly isolationist and timid Congress which foolishly believed that a visibly weaker United States would compel the Soviet Union to behave. The Russians don't operate that way. Arms agreements and the spirit of détente were simply words on paper as far as they were concerned. (Don't think so? Hitler was the one who violated the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, but only because he beat Stalin to the punch.) What Reagan recognized was that the Soviets responded to power and spat on weakness.
As I've said, I don't think the current Ukrainian crisis is going to ultimately lead to a military confrontation between the US and Russia. There's very little we can truly do over there, because the heart of the conflict doesn't exist between the United States and the Ukraine or the United States and Russia. Where it lies is between the European Union and Russia. The EU, by association, wants to compel the Ukraine to become a more liberal democratic, capitalist society,, while the Russians, essentially through bribes and subsidies, simply want the Ukraine to become a part of their sphere of influence.
Neither side has played its hand in a particularly effective manner, but particularly the EU, which had it wanted to wean the Ukraine away from Russia, needed to make them an offer they couldn't refuse. Meanwhile, here in the US, our options are limited, and I doubt if we ever send an army over there. What does that leave, economic sanctions? That's a risky play because doing so could push the Ukrainians even closer to the Russians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 17:06:37 GMT -5
If Putin is worried about his Naval access to the Black Sea, why can't he do what the US does. WE lease naval bases all over the world.
linky
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 2, 2014 17:17:54 GMT -5
Um no he didn't . And Russia is back, baby. The Russian Mob is back....
As someone who lived thru those days Reagan was welcomed
Not in my world. And many others. Reagan used the L word all the time. I found it strange the leader of my country wanted to disparage me because I thought different than him. Didn't seem American. I think it's no coincidence Rush Limbaugh and his ilk started becoming big at that time. Not a coincidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 17:31:49 GMT -5
If Putin is worried about his Naval access to the Black Sea, why can't he do what the US does. WE lease naval bases all over the world.
linky Yes, but of course, he could lease one in Cuba couldn't he?
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Mar 2, 2014 17:40:56 GMT -5
And where has that L word gotten us.. I could say after all this time to admit to being a L word or does that draw a warning level..
|
|