Russian Forces Moving In

[TexasTiger 12,952]

Never too early to blame Obama for issues brewing since before his own parents were born!

[channonc 466]

Some in this thread seem a little too quick to want to go to war.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

Some in this thread seem a little too quick to want to go to war.

As usual. Unless Obama had said it first.

[AUinWV 0]

Some in this thread seem a little too quick to want to go to war.

As usual. Unless Obama had said it first.

Obama already refused to sell Japan the missles/components they wanted for defense (against China I'm pretty sure), which they were promised in a treaty with Reagan.

Do we not have some sort of treaty or obligations with Ukraine to protect them from Russian aggression?

I'm not bashing Obama, I'm questioning what the right thing to do is.

[alexava 6,973]

Some in this thread seem a little too quick to want to go to war.

yea, when you want war before John McCain does something is wrong.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

Some in this thread seem a little too quick to want to go to war.

As usual. Unless Obama had said it first.

Obama already refused to sell Japan the missles/components they wanted for defense (against China I'm pretty sure), which they were promised in a treaty with Reagan.

Do we not have some sort of treaty or obligations with Ukraine to protect them from Russian aggression?

I'm not bashing Obama, I'm questioning what the right thing to do is.

If you or anyone else has a constructive suggestion, I'm open to it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Will Russia be influenced by the threat of diplomatic or economic isolation?

[TexasTiger 12,952]

Zakaria has an interesting take:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/28/zakaria-russia-unlikely-to-invade-crimea-region/

[AUinWV 0]

Some in this thread seem a little too quick to want to go to war.

As usual. Unless Obama had said it first.

Obama already refused to sell Japan the missles/components they wanted for defense (against China I'm pretty sure), which they were promised in a treaty with Reagan.

Do we not have some sort of treaty or obligations with Ukraine to protect them from Russian aggression?

I'm not bashing Obama, I'm questioning what the right thing to do is.

If you or anyone else has a constructive suggestion, I'm open to it.

My idea would seem crazy and deem me so, but I think it'd work.

We have been working on projects since the 60s that make tye B2 look like a WWII weapon. We wrestle control of our "privatized" military (IE free from FOIA) from the worlds elite, then tell Russia...

"Look, what you know we have is what our granddads faught with. Check out our new weapons. Sorry Shell and Exxon, our country is more important. Heres 26B. It seperates pieces of your continent from the mantle. Here's 147C3. It provides nearly infinite energy to any point we choose. Here's the A704. It disappears from radar and visual, at will, and you will see I fleet of them above your country if this aggression is not immediately haulted and reversed. And that's just our late 80s models..."

(Worse case scenerio, MAD worked better and saved more than "lets just pretend the problem doesn't exist, and it won't")

[homersapien 11,388]

Saw this photo. Unfortunately, it is probably how the world sees us now.

It's still a little early for the Obama bashing to start isn't it? I assume you are not suggesting Obama should act based on what the world thinks of him.

What do you propose?

I'm not bashing him. I have no idea what pressure he is under. I've already stated my belief about this earlier in this thread.

Yeah you are. Even if you don't claim it.

[japantiger 4,051]

There was an interesting segment on the PBS News Hour last night. Putin was described as a narcissistic egomaniac who is obsessed with leaving his mark on history. One would have hoped that we had passed the era of dealing with sociopathic leaders of superpower countries. Guess not.

No offense, but that is rather niave considering we have our own egomaniac leaders.

All political leaders have huge egos. For that matter there is undoubtedly a higher proportion of sociopaths in politics, including the U.S..

And there are a few narcissistic sociopathic tyrants who head up small countries (N. Korea for example).

But I was hoping that the era of having such a tyrant leading a large global power was over. Hell, even China is run by a committee that can presumably displace their premier if he goes wacko.

Hope ain't much of a strategy Homey. Why would you think that? What could possibly lead you to believe that was remotely possible. When is the history of the world has their not been a sociopathic tyrant stirring up trouble. Foreign policy based on this type of irrational "hope" inevitably leads to folly. Bully's will always be bully's. They respond to one thing only...strength.

First, I wasn't aware that I was proposing a strategy. I was making a comment about the situation, not proposing a plan.

And what do you mean by asking what lead me to believe (something) is remotely possible? That doesn't even make sense. I didn't state any "beliefs". Perhaps you should clarify your assumptions before running with them.

So are you suggesting we should oppose Russia directly with military action?

Your post said "I was hoping that the era"...of tyrants leading large governments was over...your words. Only a child would offer something like that as serious commentary on this situation. Grow up Homey, the world is full of bad people that want to enslave, oppress, murder, etc.,the rest of us. To plan as if they don't or based on "hope" is folly. One of the few constitutionally granted powers of the Fed is to protect us.. Presidents need to be adults and see the world for what it is. Instead, this clown and Jimmy Carter are blowing on dandelion blooms.

[homersapien 11,388]

Zakaria has an interesting take:

http://globalpublics...-crimea-region/

Interesting. Here's another by him I found educational:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/21/zakaria-how-russia-trumped-west-over-ukraine/?iref=obinsite

[homersapien 11,388]

There was an interesting segment on the PBS News Hour last night. Putin was described as a narcissistic egomaniac who is obsessed with leaving his mark on history. One would have hoped that we had passed the era of dealing with sociopathic leaders of superpower countries. Guess not.

No offense, but that is rather niave considering we have our own egomaniac leaders.

All political leaders have huge egos. For that matter there is undoubtedly a higher proportion of sociopaths in politics, including the U.S..

And there are a few narcissistic sociopathic tyrants who head up small countries (N. Korea for example).

But I was hoping that the era of having such a tyrant leading a large global power was over. Hell, even China is run by a committee that can presumably displace their premier if he goes wacko.

Hope ain't much of a strategy Homey. Why would you think that? What could possibly lead you to believe that was remotely possible. When is the history of the world has their not been a sociopathic tyrant stirring up trouble. Foreign policy based on this type of irrational "hope" inevitably leads to folly. Bully's will always be bully's. They respond to one thing only...strength.

First, I wasn't aware that I was proposing a strategy. I was making a comment about the situation, not proposing a plan.

And what do you mean by asking what lead me to believe (something) is remotely possible? That doesn't even make sense. I didn't state any "beliefs". Perhaps you should clarify your assumptions before running with them.

So are you suggesting we should oppose Russia directly with military action?

Your post said "I was hoping that the era"...of tyrants leading large governments was over...your words. Only a child would offer something like that as serious commentary on this situation. Grow up Homey, the world is full of bad people that want to enslave, oppress, murder, etc.,the rest of us. To plan as if they don't or based on "hope" is folly. One of the few constitutionally granted powers of the Fed is to protect us.. Presidents need to be adults and see the world for what it is. Instead, this clown and Jimmy Carter are blowing on dandelion blooms.

Well, I figure only a child - or at least someone with some child-like ego issues* - would take my post and blow it up into something worthy of a flaming rant. Jeeeez....

*(a.k.a. a total and complete A hole)

[AUinWV 0]

Personally, I think were all wrong about this at some point or another. Which makes it possible if not likely were all right about some factor as well. Perhaps if we remained civil and had a logical discussion on this, more of us could have a more helpful perspective...

This isn't repub vs demo or left vs right. Weve been headed down this same road for a long time, since LBJ if not before, in my opinion. Bush1 and Clinton both screwed us in various ways, then Bush2, then Bush3.1 aka Obama. They're all bad for us. Its like saying caesium137 pills are better for us than cyanide. Well, depends on perspective and situation!

Can't we just agree they're both bad and figure out something better to eat?

[Weegle777 78]

Saw this photo. Unfortunately, it is probably how the world sees us now.

It's still a little early for the Obama bashing to start isn't it? I assume you are not suggesting Obama should act based on what the world thinks of him.

What do you propose?

I'm not bashing him. I have no idea what pressure he is under. I've already stated my belief about this earlier in this thread.

Yeah you are. Even if you don't claim it.

No.....I'm .....not.

[AUinWV 0]

Saw this photo. Unfortunately, it is probably how the world sees us now.

It's still a little early for the Obama bashing to start isn't it? I assume you are not suggesting Obama should act based on what the world thinks of him.

What do you propose?

I'm not bashing him. I have no idea what pressure he is under. I've already stated my belief about this earlier in this thread.

Yeah you are. Even if you don't claim it.

No.....I'm .....not.

[AUMed 0]

The thing that ultimately fell the USSR was economic isolation. The current stance by this administration is to avoid military intervention at all costs. Blowing up their vastly inferior military will produce minuscule damage in comparison to the economic damage that can be done.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304585004579415122628094230?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304585004579415122628094230.html

The administration is using some pretty harsh economic warfare to force Russia to rethink it's aggressive stance.

Additionally, the G8 countries (excluding Russia of course) are pulling out of the Sochi summit.

[AUinWV 0]

Fukushima has the chance to destroy us all. Why in the hell is media not reporting on this? Radiation doesn't get better in 5 years...

Oh. Thats right. Media was bought years ago....

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

AUMed......just curious why you think we hold any strong economic cards. Russia has the trump card......all the major oil and gas pipelines to Europe go thru Ukraine. And note that no one has pulled out of G8......just the planning for the next meting. So what's the big deal if they do kick Russia of of the G8? Do you not think Putin has thought about that? We stand to lose more than economic related stuff. Our small country "friends" around the world will see that if Russia, China, Iran, or whoever, come after them the US will do nothing more than say there will be consequences.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

AUMed......just curious why you think we hold any strong economic cards. Russia has the trump card......all the major oil and gas pipelines to Europe go thru Ukraine. And note that no one has pulled out of G8......just the planning for the next meting. So what's the big deal if they do kick Russia of of the G8? Do you not think Putin has thought about that? We stand to lose more than economic related stuff. Our small country "friends" around the world will see that if Russia, China, Iran, or whoever, come after them the US will do nothing more than say there will be consequences.

Well, the first market cycle there doesn't really bear that out.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101459014

http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/721763

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/03/ukraine-crisis-hits-stock-markets-as-russia-hikes-interest-rates-business-live

[AUDub 11,153]

Fukushima has the chance to destroy us all. Why in the hell is media not reporting on this? Radiation doesn't get better in 5 years...

Oh. Thats right. Media was bought years ago....

Would you mind sourcing this statement, please? I'm curious.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Fukushima has the chance to destroy us all. Why in the hell is media not reporting on this? Radiation doesn't get better in 5 years...

Oh. Thats right. Media was bought years ago....

Would you mind sourcing this statement, please? I'm curious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26329323

http://blog.seattlepi.com/bigscience/2014/02/25/true-radiation-from-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-here-soon-false-it-will-kill-you/#20996101=0&20997103=0

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/26/fukushima_radioactivity_a_complete_nonissue_on_west_coast_also_for_fukushima_locals_in_fact/

[homersapien 11,388]

Saw this photo. Unfortunately, it is probably how the world sees us now.

It's still a little early for the Obama bashing to start isn't it? I assume you are not suggesting Obama should act based on what the world thinks of him.

What do you propose?

I'm not bashing him. I have no idea what pressure he is under. I've already stated my belief about this earlier in this thread.

Yeah you are. Even if you don't claim it.

No.....I'm .....not.

Yes..... you...... are.

[homersapien 11,388]

Fukushima has the chance to destroy us all. Why in the hell is media not reporting on this? Radiation doesn't get better in 5 years...

Oh. Thats right. Media was bought years ago....

There's not enough radiation there to destroy us. But they will eventually start releasing captured radioactive water into the sea so a a lot of it will ultimately wind up in the food chain and eventually into our bodies. The same sort of thing happened during the era of atmospheric testing. But we live on a radioactive planet, some natural, some man-made.

http://www.rerowland.com/BodyActivity.htm

[Weegle777 78]

Saw this photo. Unfortunately, it is probably how the world sees us now.

It's still a little early for the Obama bashing to start isn't it? I assume you are not suggesting Obama should act based on what the world thinks of him.

What do you propose?

I'm not bashing him. I have no idea what pressure he is under. I've already stated my belief about this earlier in this thread.

Yeah you are. Even if you don't claim it.

No.....I'm .....not.

Yes..... you...... are.

Wrong again.