Ukraine

AerchAngel said:
you mean making Star Wars again?

Or the Cold War starting up again?

I agree with you.

This is Obama's moment to shine, he better not shat it away this time.
Click to expand...

Eh, this is that "no lose scenario" the Repubs have been hoping for all this time. There really isn't any way Obama can (realistically) turn this to his advantage. We all know Putin isn't scared of any American president or any American period, with the possible exception of Chuck Norris and he's past his prime. I think had the Repubs not be constantly bitching about everything Obama has ever said or done, whether it be good, bad, or indifferent, their complaints now might be better received across the board, but the minions, Fox, the far right websites, and talk radio area already taking Viagra and testosterone injections by the truck load they've creamed themselves so much and so violently over this. Might Obama have done more earlier on to stop this from happening?? Possibly, I definitely think this is the Repubs' best argument. I can't see any good ideas coming from either side now except to possibly do a little damage control. Of course the right is now in the enviable position of not having to have a solution, all they have to do is criticize till their hoarse. After all the Dems did it to W and we all know how much all politicians and political pundits love them some payback and gotcha. It would seem that the Repubs, like every proverbial dog, are having their day.

Of course if the Dems can figure out some sort of reasonable way out of this clusterpfark the hard line Repubs won't care they'll blast anything he does, but the rank and file Americans will give Obama lots of credit. I would think the chances of that happening are just slightly less likely than the Forty-Whiner fans shutting the pfark up and giving it a pfarking rest about the officiating in the NFC championship game.

By the way, since I haven't seen it brought up, and since I am a history teacher, who can travel down memory lane with me? The year is 1853 and Russia goes to war with the Ottoman (Turks) Empire, and later Britain the France would join the Turks, fearing a shift in the balance of power in Europe, claiming two provinces in what is now Romania. So, what were the Czar's two main justifications for "having to go to war" then?? Anybody??? Also, where did most of the actual fighting occur, including the Charge of the Light Brigade and the eventual loss of Sevastapol by the Russians to the Turks/British/French??? Anyone???

Oh and what is the official name of that conflict???
 
Hawk said:
I see it too.

vladimir-putin-eyes-addresses.jpg
Click to expand...

yeah, this one was when he watched that movie where the puppy didn't die at the end.
 
jpx7 said:
Adding a country every other year or three to the provisional list of EU-membership consideration isn't "doing something"?

Sheesh: you just can't please some people.
Click to expand...

We spend about twice as much as all of Europe combined on defense. That's my gripe. And don't get me wrong. I'm not defending our bloated defense budget. But you don't hear the right wing talking heads say anything about Europe stepping up on the defense side of the equation. All they do is carp about us cutting defense.
 
CK86 said:
"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text."

- John Kerry

Don't we do this all the time?
Click to expand...

No, we do it in 20th century fashion.
 
Julio3000 said:
Concerning US response to this… there are a limited number of options that we can reasonably undertake here. Best I can tell, there is pretty broad, bipartisan agreement as to what they are. Maybe we should wait and see before deciding that all is lost.

Suggesting that Putin has been emboldened by US/European reticence MAY be correct, but it's still supposition. A bellicose posture over the last several years might just as well have led to a different unsatisfactory outcome. Pretty much every drop of ink that's been spilled about this is partisan sniping in the space between deliberation and action.

If Russia ends up prying away Crimea, it will get used as a partisan stick to whack Obama with. Still, considering that the groundwork for this has been laid over the last decade or so (to say nothing of the previous decades), I have not seen a coherent case for how a [insert generic Republican here] administration would have forestalled it.
Click to expand...

I'd think one difference would have been in the handling of Poland. Wouldn't you?
 
KeithLockhart said:
Absolutely not justified. It still makes sense as to what is going on and isn't a surprise. Crimea is embracing Russia. Only solution is split east west or Crimea is absorbed officially by Russia.
Click to expand...

Capturing one of the 2 main ports of the Ukraine, and the most strategic. Good thing Russia had that colony in Crimea...
 
BedellBrave said:
Capturing one of the 2 main ports of the Ukraine, and the most strategic. Good thing Russia had that colony in Crimea...
Click to expand...

So if we send our guys there before Russia it's an act of aggression. If we send it there now it's an act of war. What would you suggest we do?
 
Hawk said:
Obama is doing the right thing -- ramping up rhetoric, currying favor domestically, and sending his Secretary of State directly into the conflict zone. The Obama administration is being uncharacteristically aggressive. If you oppose foreign entanglements, then you probably shouldn't support what the President is doing right now.
Click to expand...

Agreed. After the incursion I think he has been doing the right things.
 
Hawk said:
I don't understand what you mean. Should Mexico be allowed to invade New Mexico because the state is largely pro-Mexican?

Putin is not going to take Crimea (or the Ukraine) because it isn't his to take. Don't forget, Russia has been in Crimea for months handing out Russian passports and basically constructing a valid reason to wade into the country.

This situation was entirely avoidable. A proactive relationship with the Kremlin would've been a good start. The US could actually benefit a great deal from a healthy closeness with Moscow.
Click to expand...

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
 
KeithLockhart said:
So if we send our guys there before Russia it's an act of aggression. If we send it there now it's an act of war. What would you suggest we do?
Click to expand...

I've already given all my suggestions, a couple of times already. I am just telling you the extent of this Crimea action and how it has been rigged to be this way for a long time. And guess what - Russia has other such colonies to be used as needed.
 
CK86 said:
"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text."

- John Kerry

Don't we do this all the time?
Click to expand...

post 162

and yeah, it's a joke he said it
 
Hawk said:
I have to, because that's how stunningly ludicrous invading a sovereign country is (in modern times).
Click to expand...

This is true, and further underscores how toxic the invasion of Iraq was to our national interests.

That decision isolated us from our traditional European allies, and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have tied up resources in the departments of State and Defense that might otherwise be used elsewhere.

Still, Obama is president and repairing those relationships and deploying those resources are his responsibility. But I do think that that the full context should be considered when we look at how we got to the current situation.
 
jpx7 said:
Ah: the old Sprawa polska.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I don't understand. An explanation would be appreciated as well as your opinion on whether a Republican POTUS would have handled Poland's concerns about missile defense differently than President Obama. Thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top