|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 20, 2014 10:22:56 GMT -5
An interesting opinion from Rex Murphy on why Russia went into Crimea.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Mar 20, 2014 11:14:01 GMT -5
Hard to argue with is views. Obama will likely go down as the worst president since Carter.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 20, 2014 11:25:19 GMT -5
As poor a job as Obama may be doing, I can't think of any President who's done more harm than G Dubyah.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 20, 2014 18:10:00 GMT -5
What? No mention of what President got Bin Laden ... Probably didn't mesh with his argument.
The US are damned if they do, damned if they don't. They aren't the World's police force, and when they do take action, their Allies stay at arms length. Then the rest of the world complains at the US's foreign policy. This is what happens when countries doth protest too much, you have to handle it yourself ...
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 20, 2014 21:38:47 GMT -5
Good points skilly. NATO should be disbanded. This is where they're supposed to step in and do something. They ARE the world police. They are supposed to step in and protect a country's sovereignty. If they're not going to step up for Ukraine, just pack up your things in Belgium and go home.
Putin is doing what he is doing because no one is doing anything. There was an argument made that France and some other countries in Europe are afraid to do anything because they buy the bulk of their oil from Russia. Guess what, a two week oil embargo of Russia (buy it elsewhere dummies) will bankrupt Russia.
They aren't the military power they used to be either, and they certainly couldn't financially sustain a conflict. Putin's KGB communist arse needs a good kicking. Rex talks about Obama's smugness and temerity, but as far as I'm concerned he doesn't hold a candle to Putin. Old Vlad is an arrogant ass that needs a good kicking.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 21, 2014 6:48:24 GMT -5
Good points skilly. NATO should be disbanded. This is where they're supposed to step in and do something. They ARE the world police. They are supposed to step in and protect a country's sovereignty. If they're not going to step up for Ukraine, just pack up your things in Belgium and go home. NATO is conflicted on what to do because Ukraine is not apart of NATO. But the UN, they should be the world's justice. A shell vote just to let the world watch Russia exercise its veto power was laughable. I realize there is no appetite for war on anyone's part, and I bet Russia doesnt have the stomach for it either, but surely there is something they could do ... call Putin's bluff. They are all afraid that Russia will get a stronger tie to China. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but the passive stance isn't going to prevent him from trying it again with western Ukraine
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 21, 2014 6:49:29 GMT -5
... or over the North Pole.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 21, 2014 8:06:54 GMT -5
NATO is conflicted on what to do because Ukraine is not apart of NATO. But the UN, they should be the world's justice. A shell vote just to let the world watch Russia exercise its veto power was laughable. the anagram for United Nations isn't toothless . . . but it might as well be. peace in our time.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 21, 2014 10:21:33 GMT -5
The decision to not side with the US in Iraq, and then not take responsibility for the cleanup, are two decisions I applaud the UN for. However, if it's an all-out war you want, the UN can't match up. It's too dysfunctional an organization on too many levels. Crimea is not NATO's responsibility and it isn't the world's policeman either. The only time in it's existence where NATO deployed under it's own mandate was in Afghanistan. This was invoked because one of the members, the US, was attacked. From Wikipedia:The September 11th attacks in the United States caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in the organization's history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.China is a member of a newly-formed economic/strategic alliance called, BRICS. I wouldn't worry all that much about improving Sino-Russian relations. They've been on good terms for quite a while now. I'll try to find the link later, but I read some time back that in exchange for securing his eastern flank, Putin agreed to open the oil taps five times more than they were into China, but at the same price as before. China is staying quiet (at least for now). They hold stakes on both sides of the fence, but they already have good relations with Russia. As for Crimea, there was a new government elected prior to the Russian occupation. From what I understand that new government wasn't recognized by the Russian. I heard on CBC that the main reason Russia went in was because they lost a puppet government in Crimea. I'll try to find a link to that too. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 22, 2014 14:21:11 GMT -5
Nonsense. I think obama is GREAT at rallying the troops.......in Hollywood. Just ask him at the next tv appearance. I'm not sure why it took so long for some people to realize obama's hollowness. He acts more like a king with his subjects then a leader. He is a mixture of arrogance, flavored with incompetence and cooked in unicorn agenda. He is what the world does not need when it comes to leadership and peace. He is proving over and over again what us "racists" warned you about...
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 22, 2014 14:34:57 GMT -5
... or over the North Pole. I am a crazy man. I mean crazy loony crazy. Crazy like you want to cross the street crazy.... I want Canada to be nuclear armed. Why? If anyone thinks that the US will back us up to the hilt in a row over the North with Russia, with all due respect, they are delusional. No president, no matter how tough will put New York City in harms way to back up any credible Russian threat. Iran, whacko imams included, have it right when they think that nuclear weapons makes any and all aggressive decisions fatal to even the strongest military. In the simplest terms, think of it as......there are no cops and I have a disagreement over the property line with my neighbor. If I'm far bigger and have a shotgun and my neighbor has nothing, I would be tempted to just take it. On the other hand, if he can blow a hole in my brain, do I want to get to that standoff? When the UN is as useless as a kindergarten debating club, nuclear weapons are the great equalizers.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 23, 2014 2:16:33 GMT -5
Must read material.....and this why I fear the chaos and enabling of weakness.....from one of the best news sources left...The Economist ------------ The new world order
The post-Soviet world order was far from perfect, but Vladimir Putin’s idea for replacing it is much worse“IN PEOPLE’S hearts and minds,” Vladimir Putin told Russia’s parliament this week, “Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia.” He annexed the peninsula with dazzling speed and efficiency, backed by a crushing majority in a referendum (see article). He calls it a victory for order and legitimacy and a blow against Western meddling. The reality is that Mr Putin is a force for instability and strife. The founding act of his new order was to redraw a frontier using arguments that could be deployed to inflame territorial disputes in dozens of places around the world. Even if most Crimeans do want to join Russia, the referendum was a farce. Russia’s recent conduct is often framed narrowly as the start of a new cold war with America. In fact it poses a broader threat to countries everywhere because Mr Putin has driven a tank over the existing world order. The embrace of the motherland Foreign policy follows cycles. The Soviet collapse ushered in a decade of unchallenged supremacy for the United States and the aggressive assertion of American values. But, puffed up by the hubris of George Bush, this “unipolar world” choked in the dust of Iraq. Since then Barack Obama has tried to fashion a more collaborative approach, built on a belief that America can make common cause with other countries to confront shared problems and isolate wrongdoers. This has failed miserably in Syria but shown some signs of working with Iran. Even in its gentler form, it is American clout that keeps sea lanes open, borders respected and international law broadly observed. To that extent, the post-Soviet order has meaning. Mr Putin is now destroying that. He dresses up his takeover of Crimea in the garb of international law, arguing for instance that the ousting of the government in Kiev means he is no longer bound by a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine’s borders that Russia signed in 1994, when Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons. But international law depends on governments inheriting the rights and duties of their predecessors. Similarly, he has invoked the principle that he must protect his “compatriots”—meaning anybody he chooses to define as Russian—wherever they are. Against all evidence, he has denied that the unbadged troops who took control of Crimea were Russian. That combination of protection and subterfuge is a formula for intervention in any country with a minority, not just a Russian one. Brandishing fabricated accounts of Ukrainian fascists threatening Crimea, he has defied the principle that intervention abroad should be a last resort in the face of genuine suffering. He cites NATO’s bombing of Kosovo in 1999 as a precedent, but that came after terrible violence and exhaustive efforts at the UN—which Russia blocked. Even then Kosovo was not, like Crimea, immediately annexed, but seceded nine years later. Mr Putin’s new order, in short, is built on revanchism, a reckless disdain for the truth and the twisting of the law to mean whatever suits those in power. That makes it no order at all. Sadly, too few people understand this. Plenty of countries resent American primacy and Western moralising. But they would find Mr Putin’s new order far worse. Small countries thrive in an open system of rules, albeit imperfect ones. If might is right, they have much to fear, especially if they must contend with an aggressive regional power. Larger countries, especially the new giants of the emerging world, face less threat of bullying, but an anarchic, mistrustful world would harm them all the same. If international agreements are robbed of their meaning, India could more easily be sucked into a clash of arms with China over Arunachal Pradesh or Ladakh with Pakistan. If unilateral secession is acceptable, Turkey will find it harder to persuade its Kurds that their future lies in making peace. Egypt and Saudi Arabia want Iran’s regional ambitions to be tamped down, not fed by the principle that it can intervene to help Shia Muslims across the Middle East. Even China should pause. Tactically, Crimea ties it in knots. The precedent of secession is anathema, because of Tibet; the principle of unification is sacrosanct, because of Taiwan. Strategically, though, China’s interests are clear. For decades, it has sought to rise peacefully within the system, avoiding the competition that an upstart Germany launched against Britain in the 19th century and which ended in war. But peace is elusive in Mr Putin’s world, because anything can become a pretext for action, and any perceived aggression demands a riposte. Act now or pay later For Mr Obama, this is a defining moment: he must lead, not just co-operate. But Crimea should also matter to the rest of the world. Given what is at stake, the response has so far been weak and fragmented. China and India have more or less stood aside. The West has imposed visa sanctions and frozen a few Russians’ assets. The targets call this a badge of honour. (Better to do nothing then pretend to do something...and get laughed at. Total FAIL.)At the very least, the measures must start to exceed expectations. Asset freezes can be powerful, because, as the Iran sanctions showed, international finance dreads being caught up in America’s regulatory machinery. Mr Putin’s kleptocratic friends would yelp if Britain made London unwelcome to Russian money linked to the regime (see article). France should withhold its arms sales to Russia; and, in case eastern Ukraine is next, Germany must be prepared to embargo Russian oil and gas. Planning should start right now to lessen Europe’s dependence on Russian energy and to strengthen NATO. (Hello Canadian oil and gas.)Ukraine needs short-term money, to stave off collapse, and longer-term reforms, with the help of the IMF, backed by as much outside advice as the country will stomach. As a first step, America must immediately pay its dues to the fund, which have been blocked by Congress for months. Even if the West is prepared to take serious measures against Mr Putin, the world’s rising powers may not be inclined to condemn him. But instead of acquiescing in his illegal annexation of Crimea, they should reflect on what kind of a world order they want to live under. Would they prefer one in which states by and large respect international agreements and borders? Or one in which words are bent, borders ignored and agreements broken at will? www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599346-post-soviet-world-order-was-far-perfect-vladimir-putins-idea-replacing-it
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 24, 2014 15:20:19 GMT -5
... or over the North Pole. I am a crazy man. I mean crazy loony crazy. Crazy like you want to cross the street crazy.... I want Canada to be nuclear armed. Why? If anyone thinks that the US will back us up to the hilt in a row over the North with Russia, with all due respect, they are delusional. No president, no matter how tough will put New York City in harms way to back up any credible Russian threat. Iran, whacko imams included, have it right when they think that nuclear weapons makes any and all aggressive decisions fatal to even the strongest military. In the simplest terms, think of it as......there are no cops and I have a disagreement over the property line with my neighbor. If I'm far bigger and have a shotgun and my neighbor has nothing, I would be tempted to just take it. On the other hand, if he can blow a hole in my brain, do I want to get to that standoff? When the UN is as useless as a kindergarten debating club, nuclear weapons are the great equalizers. The thing about proliferation of arms is that they are useless unless you have every intent on using them .... Canada does not have the stomach for it.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 25, 2014 12:29:51 GMT -5
I am a crazy man. I mean crazy loony crazy. Crazy like you want to cross the street crazy.... I want Canada to be nuclear armed. Why? If anyone thinks that the US will back us up to the hilt in a row over the North with Russia, with all due respect, they are delusional. No president, no matter how tough will put New York City in harms way to back up any credible Russian threat. Iran, whacko imams included, have it right when they think that nuclear weapons makes any and all aggressive decisions fatal to even the strongest military. In the simplest terms, think of it as......there are no cops and I have a disagreement over the property line with my neighbor. If I'm far bigger and have a shotgun and my neighbor has nothing, I would be tempted to just take it. On the other hand, if he can blow a hole in my brain, do I want to get to that standoff? When the UN is as useless as a kindergarten debating club, nuclear weapons are the great equalizers. The thing about proliferation of arms is that they are useless unless you have every intent on using them .... Canada does not have the stomach for it. Neither does Obama. And Crimea may not be enough. According to the White House, Russian troops may be massing on the Ukraine border. Putin knows there is weak leadership in Washington and he's taking full advantage of that. Odd comparison; Obama might be a weak international leader, but his economy has been recovering quite nicely of late. Ronald Regan started the economic decline in the US, but the Russians didn't screw with him. He had a strong international presence and the Russians knew he's use his shotgun if he had to. Obama's reaction to this point has been akin to "... stop kicking sand in my face ..." #the incident that made a man out of Obama MackInteresting coincidence in that every time the Russians went in somewhere they've always conducted major exercises along the boarder they intended to breach. Iraq did this just before going into Kuwait and they were backed a lot by the Russians (the Yanks were in there at one point, too). I suspect if military options become a choice, the only place you'd be able to hide your retirement savings will be your mattress. The markets would probably plunge more than they did in 2008. #I'm not an economistBut, that's not the worst-case scenario. Why was JFK assassinated? Many believe it was because he wanted to pull the troops out of Vietnam and too many people would lose money. Obama definitely doesn't want another military deployment right now. I don't see him being assassinated, but is it possible they'll remove and replace him with a genuine leader? Hopefully, Crimea, Ukraine, Russia make for a series of bad movies and that's it. However, I suspect there's a lot more to come. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 25, 2014 13:07:03 GMT -5
Has anyone noticed how little information comes out of the Mr. Capitulates WH?
Has anyone noticed how relativity little news you are hearing about massing Russian troops along a border who has already been invaded?
But the most important thing of all.....WHO GOT ELIMINATED FROM AMERICAN IDOL?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 25, 2014 13:16:19 GMT -5
I don't see him being assassinated, but is it possible they'll remove and replace him with a genuine leader? and that would be . . . ? The Democrats are offering up Hillary. The Republicans? no one!
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 25, 2014 13:26:31 GMT -5
I don't see him being assassinated, but is it possible they'll remove and replace him with a genuine leader? and that would be . . . ? The Democrats are offering up Hillary. The Republicans? no one! Like who, indeed. And we think our federal options are limited. Changing direction on you. I'm wondering if this scenario is where Putin got the idea to test Obama's resolve. www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Rex+Murphy/ID/2405974154/?page=2
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 25, 2014 13:29:24 GMT -5
Interesting coincidence in that every time the Russians went in somewhere they've always conducted major exercises along the boarder they intended to breach. Iraq did this just before going into Kuwait and they were backed a lot by the Russians (the Yanks were in there at one point, too). I suspect if military options become a choice, the only place you'd be able to hide your retirement savings will be your mattress. The markets would probably plunge more than they did in 2008. #I'm not an economistBut, that's not the worst-case scenario. Why was JFK assassinated? Many believe it was because he wanted to pull the troops out of Vietnam and too many people would lose money. Obama definitely doesn't want another military deployment right now. I don't see him being assassinated, but is it possible they'll remove and replace him with a genuine leader? Hopefully, Crimea, Ukraine, Russia make for a series of bad movies and that's it. However, I suspect there's a lot more to come. Cheers. C'mon Dis, please don't tell me that all this surprises you. In another political forum, my bi-line reads......Appease, capitulate, surrender...and that was 3 months BEFORE he took office. It's mostly a geopolitical forum and that community accepted that obama would be very dangerous for the relative peace of the world. One of the The Laws Of Geopolitics is that it abhors a power vacuum....but obama and his court never got the message. Given that this is now six years of his reign, he and his disciples can no longer can claim that he is naive, now, he's willfully negligent. I'm not sure what to expect. If obama does not get a backbone soon, then there is NOTHING that will stop Putin or any other aggression in the world. Certainly not Europe and absolutely certainly not the debating club that is the UN. At this point, I say there is a 20% chance that it can get a lot worse. A 5% chance that it can become catastrophic.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 25, 2014 13:37:49 GMT -5
Do you really think Hillary would be any better? Geopolitical action is based on predicting (often wrongly) on what others will do in response to your actions. Which means that it's tainted with perception. Tell me something, are you frightened on what Hillary may do? If you are not, neither is Putin. As for "Republicans got nothing"....it's the Democrats and slanted media bent of dismissing the Republicans. They control the House, they will control Congress in six months, they control most of the states governments, they were off 6% from taking the presidency, but they are "a spent force of obstructionist rednecks". There are plenty of middle and heavyweights including Christie, Rubio, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 25, 2014 13:39:51 GMT -5
Interesting coincidence in that every time the Russians went in somewhere they've always conducted major exercises along the boarder they intended to breach. Iraq did this just before going into Kuwait and they were backed a lot by the Russians (the Yanks were in there at one point, too). I suspect if military options become a choice, the only place you'd be able to hide your retirement savings will be your mattress. The markets would probably plunge more than they did in 2008. #I'm not an economistBut, that's not the worst-case scenario. Why was JFK assassinated? Many believe it was because he wanted to pull the troops out of Vietnam and too many people would lose money. Obama definitely doesn't want another military deployment right now. I don't see him being assassinated, but is it possible they'll remove and replace him with a genuine leader? Hopefully, Crimea, Ukraine, Russia make for a series of bad movies and that's it. However, I suspect there's a lot more to come. Cheers. C'mon Dis, please don't tell me that all this surprises you. In another political forum, my bi-line reads......Appease, capitulate, surrender...and that was 3 months BEFORE he took office. It's mostly a geopolitical forum and that community accepted that obama would be very dangerous for the relative peace of the world. One of the The Laws Of Geopolitics is that it abhors a power vacuum....but obama and his court never got the message. Given that this is now six years of his reign, he and his disciples can no longer can claim that he is naive, now, he's willfully negligent. I'm not sure what to expect. If obama does not get a backbone soon, then there is NOTHING that will stop Putin or any other aggression in the world. Certainly not Europe and absolutely certainly not the debating club that is the UN. At this point, I say there is a 20% chance that it can get a lot worse. A 5% chance that it can become catastrophic. You know, HA, there were a few other events prior to the Syrian waffle that really caused Obama to lose respect. Bowing the King of Saudi Arabia really shocked a lot of western countries. Then Putin tells the White House that if the conduct any military operations on Syria, they'd bomb Saudi. I'm kind of leery about the second example, though. It's online, but none of the major news networks reported it. Still, I wouldn't put it past Putin ... the guy has developed a set of stones recently. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 25, 2014 14:08:45 GMT -5
There are plenty of middle and heavyweights including Christie, Rubio, etc. anyone with any bite/balls/whatever will be in a dogfight with another . . . then some MOTRer will win the nomination a la Redford and Stelmach.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 25, 2014 14:58:57 GMT -5
There are plenty of middle and heavyweights including Christie, Rubio, etc. anyone with any bite/balls/whatever will be in a dogfight with another . . . then some MOTRer will win the nomination a la Redford and Stelmach. That's vastly different from saying that the Republicans have "no one". BTW....I'm a social liberal, atheist, fiscal and geopolitical conservative. Which does not make me a "Republican". It's simply fits the US spectrum of politics closer then Democrats. Canadian Conservatives are closer to my politics then Republicans, but there are also large areas in dis-agreement. So when I defend Republicans, I chop down redwoods and use them as nose plugs.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 25, 2014 15:11:31 GMT -5
You know, HA, there were a few other events prior to the Syrian waffle that really caused Obama to lose respect. Bowing the King of Saudi Arabia really shocked a lot of western countries. Then Putin tells the White House that if the conduct any military operations on Syria, they'd bomb Saudi. I'm kind of leery about the second example, though. It's online, but none of the major news networks reported it. Still, I wouldn't put it past Putin ... the guy has developed a set of stones recently. Cheers. The Law Of Geopolitics state that there is power equilibrium. Putin's stones grew directly proportional as obama's stone shriveled. Here is the problem. The larger the spread in stone size, the larger the risk. Call it......Unintended Consequence of Stone Shriveling. Sheesh...All kidding aside, there is a larger and larger risk the more this is allowed to progress. There has to be a very hard line set where the minimum reaction should be set out. One example would be that no American company or bank can do business with Russia. That's is an absolute minimum start. Did you hear anything said by obama along those lines? In fact, what you will find are articles about "what's at $take" in terms of money in the media, not what's at stake in terms of people. Corporations are speaking, people and politicians with a backbone need not apply.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 25, 2014 15:32:49 GMT -5
anyone with any bite/balls/whatever will be in a dogfight with another . . . then some MOTRer will win the nomination a la Redford and Stelmach. That's vastly different from saying that the Republicans have "no one". let me re-think: it won't matter if there is anyone with [blah blah blah] because the Republicans don't have a star/idol/media wh . . . er, hound. it's coming down to image in the US, and they haven't been working on it. they have airhead women and old greyhairs . . . no one who will be able to do much when the Dems to cry out "Keystone" or "Climate". I guess Rubio might carry Florida, but will the "genteel" states vote for him? Christie? the Dems will invoke "Bush". might make it interesting though.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 25, 2014 15:52:24 GMT -5
That's vastly different from saying that the Republicans have "no one". let me re-think: it won't matter if there is anyone with [blah blah blah] because the Republicans don't have a star/idol/media wh . . . er, hound. it's coming down to image in the US, and they haven't been working on it. they have airhead women and old greyhairs . . . no one who will be able to do much when the Dems to cry out "Keystone" or "Climate". I guess Rubio might carry Florida, but will the "genteel" states vote for him? Christie? the Dems will invoke "Bush". might make it interesting though. I can't argue with that. I blame part of that on the media. As soon as anyone connected to the right sputters something inane, the Democrats never fail to scream incessantly about it.....and the complaint media simply tag along. The Democrats worse nightmare is to allow a reasonable voice from the right, it threatens their entire victimhood and righteous house of cards. Of course the Republicans half wits are just too half witted to understand that their petty little fiefdoms are marginalizing their power. Anyone who rises from the Republicans has to have enough credibility to tell the whacko end to put a sock in it.....and draw the independents. As for star/idol/media? Why stop at the border? Don't you LOVE nice hair? Drama queen speeches? Airhead pontifications? Get with it gramps! It's coming to Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 25, 2014 16:02:50 GMT -5
You know, HA, there were a few other events prior to the Syrian waffle that really caused Obama to lose respect. Bowing the King of Saudi Arabia really shocked a lot of western countries. Then Putin tells the White House that if the conduct any military operations on Syria, they'd bomb Saudi. I'm kind of leery about the second example, though. It's online, but none of the major news networks reported it. Still, I wouldn't put it past Putin ... the guy has developed a set of stones recently. Cheers. The Law Of Geopolitics state that there is power equilibrium. Putin's stones grew directly proportional as obama's stone shriveled. Here is the problem. The larger the spread in stone size, the larger the risk. Call it......Unintended Consequence of Stone Shriveling. Sheesh...All kidding aside, there is a larger and larger risk the more this is allowed to progress. There has to be a very hard line set where the minimum reaction should be set out. One example would be that no American company or bank can do business with Russia. That's is an absolute minimum start. Did you hear anything said by obama along those lines? In fact, what you will find are articles about "what's at $take" in terms of money in the media, not what's at stake in terms of people. Corporations are speaking, people and politicians with a backbone need not apply. Absolutely not, no. Obama is actually negotiating with Iran so they can keep their nuclear program intact. Wonder what he had to cough up to Israel to convince them that this is the rout to go. We're now seeing Putin's "I've-got-the-bigger-d*ck" foreign policy in action and he's making sure we see that. He's breached the sovereignty of another nation and he's dared the world community to stop him. What do you think would happen to Russia if the world's banks were closed off to them? I don't have the time to go back and find it, but I remember us talking about how many Americans felt their reputation as THE international heavyweight had been taking hits. That was a few years back, I think. Putin is calling a lot of the shots; Iran, Crimea/Ukraine. What's next? This is where we are now. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 25, 2014 16:18:03 GMT -5
Hard to argue with is views. Obama will likely go down as the worst president since Carter. I must respectfully disagree with you! While Carter was intelligent but ineffective, he was vastly superior to Obama. There have been worse presidents than Obama, but not in the US. Duvalier and Hussein were worse, but the US has never had a worse president. Bush was a strategic thinker, not a tactical thinker. While his oratory skills were questionable his values and accomplishments were good. I disliked Nixon and his dishonesty, I disliked Clinton's moral values and dishonesty. The last time I really hated a president was Johnson during the Vietnam war. Obama is much worse than LBJ.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2014 12:40:31 GMT -5
The thing about proliferation of arms is that they are useless unless you have every intent on using them .... Canada does not have the stomach for it. Neither does Obama. And Crimea may not be enough. According to the White House, Russian troops may be massing on the Ukraine border. Putin knows there is weak leadership in Washington and he's taking full advantage of that. Odd comparison; Obama might be a weak international leader, but his economy has been recovering quite nicely of late. Ronald Regan started the economic decline in the US, but the Russians didn't screw with him. He had a strong international presence and the Russians knew he's use his shotgun if he had to. Obama's reaction to this point has been akin to "... stop kicking sand in my face ..." #the incident that made a man out of Obama MackInteresting coincidence in that every time the Russians went in somewhere they've always conducted major exercises along the boarder they intended to breach. Iraq did this just before going into Kuwait and they were backed a lot by the Russians (the Yanks were in there at one point, too). I suspect if military options become a choice, the only place you'd be able to hide your retirement savings will be your mattress. The markets would probably plunge more than they did in 2008. #I'm not an economistBut, that's not the worst-case scenario. Why was JFK assassinated? Many believe it was because he wanted to pull the troops out of Vietnam and too many people would lose money. Obama definitely doesn't want another military deployment right now. I don't see him being assassinated, but is it possible they'll remove and replace him with a genuine leader? Hopefully, Crimea, Ukraine, Russia make for a series of bad movies and that's it. However, I suspect there's a lot more to come. Cheers. Well, I just think you (the global you) can't have it both ways. The instant Obama attacks anyone. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bengazi, etc ...will be thrown in the Americans faces, by their ALLIES at that. Can you really blame a sitting US president to not have the stomach to go to war? Whether the instances in the past were right or wrong, is irrelevant, any action by the US immediately puts them alone on the World stage. Other countries start to step back ... But the US does nothing and it's whine whine whine. #handle your own problems and call us when we get attacked.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Mar 29, 2014 13:06:20 GMT -5
When you stand for nothing.....you do nothing.
|
|