Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Mar 16, 2014, at 8:00 PM:
How long before obama decides to stroke his ego and prove his manhood by doing something unecessary and useless with regards to Russia and Ukraine?
Replies (101)
I hope Obama doesn't blow this one also.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Mar 16, 2014, at 8:34 PM
FFF, I heard a bit of a call in show on the way home tonight. A caller pointed out that the Crimean has been home to a Russian port for ages and they can have it. A real leader through some kind of miracle mediation could convince the world to recognize and Ukraine to declare the county as a sovereign 'neutral' as Switzerland and the Vatican.
Russian interest is to prevent the possibility of Western missiles there and the West wishes to prevent Russian expansion and control.
Make Ukraine a neutral zone without weaponry sans it's own defensive national guard. No outside alliances with the West or Russia.
Just a far fetched thought or was this caller onto something?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 16, 2014, at 11:47 PM
Whose business is this besides the two countries involved?
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 5:29 AM
Dexterite
No one's business but Ukraine's and Russia's, but when the obama administration imposes sanctions on Russia, ( and they more than likely will) it will be American businesses and their employees who will be negatively affected.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 5:56 AM
Obama is not going to do anything but talk a good game which he is good at. I can't believe we even allowed Russia to get away with this, but again we have weak leadership.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 7:04 AM
How long before FreedomFadingFast decides to stroke his ego and prove his manhood by doing something unnecessary and useless with regards to Obama?
-- Posted by persnickety on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 7:09 AM
How long before FreedomFadingFast decides to stroke his ego and prove his manhood by doing something unnecessary and useless with regards to Obama? -- Posted by joe05265 on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 7:09 AM
Read Shapley's comment and reflect on how his words might apply to your endless comments. -- Posted by joe05265 on Sun, Mar 16, 2014, at 6:21 AM
This forum has devolved into an unending series of bickering, fighting, and name-calling to point that all civility has long since been lost. - Shapley
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 7:17 AM
-- Posted by joe05265 on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 7:09 AM
3hrs., 42min., 28sec.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 8:43 AM
Joe must be a child.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 9:27 AM
Obama on nation wide TV just now showed Russia whose boss (jk). Sanctions do not work, those on Iraq and Iran proves this. The only way that Putin would be shivering in his shoes after Obama's statement is if he had his shirt off in the cold Russian air.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 10:03 AM
Blender,
I must say, you have a very delicate way of phrasing things. ;-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 5:44 PM
If you are going to punish Russia for taking over Crimea by issuing personal sanctions against the ring leaders of the land grab; why would Obama not include Putin on the list....oh, I know Putin wasn't involved - good grief will 2016 please hurry up and get here.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 6:06 PM
Obama lost his "manhood" when he told Medvenev he would have more flexibility when he was reelected.
Read that as "I will bend over and grab my ankles".
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 8:50 PM
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 8:50 PM
Rock: Think the grandmas in SEMO just fainted.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 10:11 PM
Wow that's shocking. Conservatives on here blaming Pres. Obama for "not being strong enough on Putin", and are now criticizing him for even doing something. They hate him so much they can't even keep there blame straight. Well shouldn't be too shocked though that has been their M.O. his entire presidency. He's been a better president than any of the republicans would have been. It really has been remarkable that he's been able to get anything done with all the obstruction he has had to deal with. That shows a lot of strength.
-- Posted by E.A. on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 11:06 PM
"...would have been."? :)
The Bush administration tried to sway Ukraine into the Western fold and when those folks feared Russia more than NATO they decided to stay where they were and remain an uninfluenced sovereign country.
Along comes Obama and things go haywire.
This goes back a ways, Bush and the bunch wrong and Obama and his bunch have no clue.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 11:51 PM
Yep, along comes Obama, and BAM!...five years later things "go haywire". It's almost like it doesn't have anything to do with him at all... -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 7:51 AM
I asked these questions yesterday.
Who removed the sanctions against Russia that Bush put in for Putins move into Georgia?
Who cancelled the missile defense shield program to be installed in Poland?
Who told the Russian president to wait until the elections so he could be more flexible?
Who "reset" the Russian relations?
Hint: It wasn't George Bush. Bush wasn't perfect. Quit pretending Obama is.
Obama's foreign policy moves are a disaster. Period. No one can talk or spin enough about that. He was inexperienced and naive when he went into office and everyone knew it. Even his supporters. This is what you get.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:44 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:05 AM
Mic: A weak military president with a low approval rating is a signal to any country's leader he** bent on land grabbing. What kind of sanctions did our great leader imposed yesterday, claim the assets of those who most of which doesn't even have any outside of Russia, if Obama wanted to put the hurt on someone he would have included Putin who is one of the wealthiest persons in Russia with assets of 75 billion. Hopefully the USA is still here in Nov. of 2016 so a true leader can be elected other than Hillary.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:45 AM
Yea, you war mongers on here love McCains idea of
READY....FIRE....AIM
Anybody with any sense doesn't pay attention to the negativity all the time. You people couldn't have a fresh idea if it was in front of you. It really doesn't matter what Obama does, you guys would take the opposite view. Doom and gloom crew.
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:56 AM
Doom and gloom crew.-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:56 AM
Left: The Doom and Gloom crew is what we have in the White House.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:58 AM
What makes you think Russia's decisions have anything to do with him at all? -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:05 AM
See: "reset" and giving away the farm without getting anything in return. It's the Obama approach of "I'm cool. I can talk a good talk. Everybody loves me.". That's not a foreign policy.
That approach worked here in 2008 and 2012 to a group of low-information voters. It won't work with dictators, thugs and terrorists.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 9:15 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 9:59 AM
Mic: A lot of air and makes me want to take a nap zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:18 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 9:59 AM
Hey! White House talking points. Those have got to be true don't they?
How could anyone listen to Barack Obama, Jay Carney, etc. and the way they spin and mislead and take anything out of this administration on face value? How many times does a person have to be misled or lied to until they realize - "Gee, maybe this dude isn't telling the truth?"
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:26 AM
Perhaps obama would do well to channel all his hate and distain for anyone who disagrees with his domestic policies and direct toward the real enemies.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:51 AM
How's that "Reset Button" working for you Pres. Obama?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 12:15 PM
So, do you have any specific objections to the list or is your argument simply "Obama said it so it's not true"? -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:31 AM
Defend these.
"First of all, I didn't set a red line; the world set a red line."
"You can keep your current insurance if you like. Period."
Even the liberal press has hammered him on those blatant lies. If someone continually lies most normal people don't trust what they say and would look to an objective view point (maybe the press and others) and not the very talking points from the guy who is lying.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 12:41 PM
"So, do you have any specific objections to the list or is your argument simply "Obama said it so it's not true"?"
Well the odds are he is lying.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 12:51 PM
Rather than making attacks on my points that I was specific about and listed why don't you refute them? Too hard?
It's tough to be credible when your only response to specific points is "you really have no idea" - then prove it. You're words don't cut it. As a person who has claimed superior intelligence and knowledge to just about everyone here the old "you have no idea" isn't going to work. Now please enlighten us as to what I said - specifically re: Obama's moves for Russia - was wrong.
Good luck. And don't give us WH talking points.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 12:52 PM
Because they aren't related to the topic I'm discussing.
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 2:42 PM
Cop out.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 3:50 PM
Mic should take a look at the text of obama's 2008 Brandeberg Gate speech in Berlin.
Ich bin Präsident der Welt!
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 3:57 PM
Who removed the sanctions against Russia that Bush put in for Putins move into Georgia?
Who cancelled the missile defense shield program to be installed in Poland?
Who told the Russian president to wait until the elections so he could be more flexible?
Who "reset" the Russian relations?
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:44 AM
1. What sanctions? President Bush never imposed sanctions, he only talked about them.
" No sanctions over Georgia: Although several countries threatened Russia with sanctions after the Georgia conflict, none delivered.
"Shortly after the fighting ended, 38 countries pledged close to $5 billion to aid Georgia in economic recovery following the conflict. There was also some talk of sanctions against Russia, but those never materialized."
"Predictably, the memories of the administration's critics are short. After all, President Bush didn't roll back the Russian occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia after Vladimir Putin's battering of Georgia in August 2008. Bush didn't lead an alliance of the willing to isolate Russia, undermine its economy, mine the Black Sea, provide defense guarantees and rush American military supplies to Tblisi. Instead, Dubya simply denounced Moscow's reaction using much the same language President Obama is deploying now."
2. President Obama stopped wasteful spending on an anti-missile system supposedly designed to protect Europe from a missile attack from Iran. The probability of that happening is about zero. And if it were a credible threat, why would the Europeans not doing it? Why is it something the US needs to install?
3. The "flexibility" after the election is simply the capacity to address the question rationally. During the election process, republicans wrongfully claim that any action taken to deal judiciously and realistically with the Russians is "München --style" appeasement, (which it certainly is not.)
4. The reset worked with Mevedev, and had little to do with Putin (who in spite of the assertion of President Bush, does not seem to have much of a "soul.")
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 4:54 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 6:23 PM
-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 6:42 PM
Mic: Read my 5:39pm post again, I did not mentioned Obama as president but referred to a president. if you don't understand something that simple then do like I suggested go find a 10 year old.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 6:54 PM
Great link on that Berlin speech,mic. It gave me valuable insight into where you get your news,views and obsessions.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 7:10 PM
:
:
:
:
The Department of Defense briefed the President this morning:
They told President Obama that 2 Brazilian soldiers were killed in
Crimea
To everyone's surprise, he collapsed onto his desk, head in his
hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.
Finally, he composed himself and asked, "Just how many is a
brazilian?"
This is not surprising, since he obviously has no understanding of
billion or trillion either.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 7:27 PM
Mic: If you read my post on Shapely's thread, I said that I didn't agree with him. I see that you didn't understand my comment or refuse to understand so I have a 10 year old grand daughter and she can call you and explain it to you if you like or you can go around this forum asking for help.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 7:29 PM
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 7:27 PM
Rock: Now that is funny!! Mic is probably rolling on the floor but won't admit that it was funny....probably want you to google jokes to see if it was a good one or not.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 7:33 PM
Mic: Let me make this as simple as possible, it doesn't matter who is the president our enemies do not respect or fear a weak leader and will take advantage of the situation whatever it is because they have no fear of the USA and it's paper tiger of a president. Now stop crying that I insulted you cause I can remember you calling me stupid at an earlier time. And no I won't provide a link to the comment.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 7:57 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:03 PM
Mic: Are you that dense or are you putting me on? Believe from now on I'll ignore your comments and you do the same about mine.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:25 PM
I'll reflect back to idea I had before. A different president may have unleashed America's petroleum potential to put the economy on fast track recovery that would give the U.S. threat of trade restrictions against Russia some meaning.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 8:33 PM
Mic just keeps acting like nobody asked to right question. Kind of like she is waiting for someone to word it so she can use one of the pre-planned answers from http://www.yourrepublicanuncle.com
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 9:02 PM
Regrets,
The question starts...... "And what makes you think....".
It appears several people ventured some thoughts, but I guess that was not the answer she wanted.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 9:28 PM
"...and you do the same about mine."
That sounds easy. Apparently you don't realize that this whole "weak President" fable is a republican fabrication with zero basis in fact.
Ask bin Laden and numerous terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
And how is it that the republicans complain how the President is ramming things through Congress, acting like a "king," defying the Constitution, using executive orders etc. Weak??
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:05 PM
Common
I think I'll ask all the dead civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan that were slaughtered by the U.S.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:22 PM
BC, Nothing a bunch of taxes and borrowed money can't fix.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:25 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:05 PM
common: There is weak internationally and a liar domestically, and a threat to the country due to by passing the constitution. It's true he got Laden but that's about it....have a good night and dream about Obama and the many great things that he has done.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 10:27 PM
Strange to me how the liberal's defense of the constitution regarding terrorist rights of an open trial in federal courts repeated over and over has lead to conservatives calling the lack of closing the military prison in Cuba an Obama failure.
Obama claimed that would be done in campaign rhetoric. So far he hasn't made that happen.
That's one failure I support but find myself wondering about the terrorist that were released to return to their previous mission.
Common, Will you endorse Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi for president next time?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 18, 2014, at 11:24 PM
I don't have an answer miccheck but do understand your question, and no, no one has answered it. It is an assumption that Putin is being influenced by anything the US president has said or done. However, it seems clear that he does not really respect Obama.
-- Posted by ssnkemp on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 5:42 AM
And it's clear that Obama isn't respected by anyone in the international community. The "pink line" was a great moment made even more embarrassing by trying to backtrack and say he didn't draw a red line.
"Speak loudly and carry a little stick."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:35 AM
It seems clear he doesn't respect anyone in the international community. -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 6:30 AM
What makes you say that? It seems most, if not all, of the Asian continent and many in the Arab world agrees with the stance Putin has taken.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:57 AM
It would seem that the Speak Out ODS epidemic is peaking once again. Appears that 471 has been totally infected, probably from intimate contact with Dug.
Lately the leading symptoms are spurious claims that Putin was driven to reoccupy the Crimea by overwhelming signs of "weakness" of the United States, that were clearly the fault of President Obama willingly relinquishing international leadership to Putin. The US is not weak by any means and Russia is weaker now than it has been since WW II. The Russian government has always had complete control and access to the Crimean peninsula and their bases.
Reclaiming "ownership" of the area has been a Russian goal since Khrushchev gave it away in the 50's. Perhaps it was Putin's involvement in Sochi that reminded him that it was still there.
What the US can or can't do with respect to the Crimea is not a matter of 'strength" or "weakness." It is clearly a simple cost-benefit relationship. We are fully capable of driving the Russians out of the Crimea, but the cost of doing so is nowhere near being worthwhile to us. In the same fashion, Putin is undeniably aware that reclaiming the Crimea costs him next to nothing gives him political benefit at home. The best course of action for the US and Europe and the Ukraine is to start with small sanctions and build them up to reveal how the Russians react.
And so far no one of SO has presented any rational course of action that a "strong" republican "leader" would have taken. The "opposition" has no clue to what they would have done differently, and they only chant "a "weak" administration caused this, which is easy to do since they bear zero responsibility for what happens.
Actually, there is a conservative plan in the works to resolve this conflict. It involves deploying 600 cavalry to the Crimea and order the mounted horsemen to charge into the Putin valley and drive the nasty Russians back to Moscow. Or maybe that's been tried before.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 8:22 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 8:22 AM
Common: I might be infected but it is with the truth and you Liberals can't handle the truth. Did you have a niece nap or did you stay up all night writing this essay of nothing but good things about Obama. Come on Nov. 2014 and Nov. 2016....get the brooms out and clean out the White House.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 8:29 AM
See where the president has time to fill out his basketball brackets....maybe Putin should have helped him.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 8:33 AM
It makes me wonder who the real "Obama worshippers" are...-- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 8:39 AM
Mic: The "Obama Worshippers" are all the low informed voters who are also the "blood sucking freeloaders" who don't contribute anything and are just wasting space.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 8:50 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 8:54 AM
Mic: You are correct at last, or at least most of your statement is correct: "everything that's happened since January 20, 2009 is a direct result of that one man." Have a good day today and BTW the boss is looking over your shoulder wondering why you are on the internet more than you are actually working. Hope they don't fire you because we don't need another freeloader - Have a good day and may the force of Obama be with you....girlfriend and I are out of here.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 9:04 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 9:11 AM
Mic: Made a mistake before powering down my laptop and read your latest, your defending Obama all the time is a little creepy to me. Now get back to work or so call work. You have to wait till tonight for any more comments from me....just try holding your breathe till then.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 9:20 AM
Obama's Manhood
The title of the thread.
If I remember correctly, in an open microphone moment, Jesse Jackson wanted to remove it, if Obama still truly had it, back in 2007 or 2008.
If Jackson didn't get the job done then, it appears Putin did the job for him during the Syrian "crisis".
Not sure if it's even a matter of discussion any more.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 10:39 AM
"Everything I post is wrong according to you ."
-- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 11:07 AM
No, not everything, only the parts you choose not to understand or are incorrect about....
For example:
"Let me ask you a question , what makes you think Obama's empty threat did not have an effect on Putin's decision ?" written in this post or not ? :
-- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 11:05 AM
First of all, I do not believe that the President made any "threat" other than there being consequences to Putin's violation of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances his government (along with us and the Europeans) made with the Ukraine. From my point of view stating the actions have consequences is hardly an "empty threat."
But it is the Europeans that should be leading this effort, not the Americans. It is much more their business than it is ours.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"... my response was "Why do you refuse to answer my questions ? Is Gitmo still open in Cuba ? Are drones still killing terrorist and innocent citizens over seas ? Why did you ignore these questions ?"
How are they being ignored?
Of course the Guantanamo Bay installation is still open, it's an active US Naval base. The prison is still open also, and you know very well that this is only because the US Congress took specific action to prevent the movement of prisoners to the continental US.
Yes there are drones killing terrorists overseas, but why is that a bad thing? The fact there are inadvertent killing of civilians close by is not an intended outcome, and it would be preferable for the country in which the terrorists are hiding to arrest them for extradition. The alternative is to send in US troops which would endanger our people while still not preventing harm to civilians in close proximity.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 1:39 PM
the US Congress took specific action to prevent the movement of prisoners to the continental US-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 1:39 PM
Who controlled that congress?
================
The alternative is to send in US troops which would endanger our people while still not preventing harm to civilians in close proximity. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 1:39 PM
If that's a bad alternative, why do you constantly brag that Obama "got bin Laden"?
commonspin again!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 1:42 PM
"Yes there are drones killing terrorists overseas, but why is that a bad thing?"
I am curious, what International Law gives us the specific right to do this? If there are none, then we are no better than Putin, doing what feels good for him.... are we? At least these folks appear to have voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining with Russia. From what I have seen, a lot of the countries in which we are using Drones are objecting quite strongly.
I think it is time to take care of ours and forget being a self appointed world policeman.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 1:48 PM
"...why do you constantly brag that Obama "got bin Laden"?"
No "bragging" involved. The case of bin Laden was different, since he was the leading 9/11 terrorist in the world, and someone that the US had been serching for since 2001, the option of striking his compound from the air would likely have killed him but it would not have been certain, and they would have had a body to "martyrize."
In this instance, putting troops on the ground made certain he was dead, we removed the body, and scooped up computers and data at the same time. Bin Laden's burial at sea precluded anyone from making his funeral plot a shrine.
There is no question that the President did exactly the right thing.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 2:02 PM
"...there may be a suspect seated there..."
With all due respect, it is nothing like that by any definition. In most cases the target individuals have been identified to the government harboring these criminals and that government has the option of arresting them and holding them for trial or extraditing them to the United States. It would preferable if it were not necessary, but how can we risk another 9/11 type attack.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 3:34 PM
"...there may be a suspect seated there..."
With all due respect, it is nothing like that by any definition. In most cases the target individuals have been identified to the government harboring these criminals and that government has the option of arresting them and holding them for trial or extraditing them to the United States. It would preferable if it were not necessary, but how can we risk another 9/11 type attack.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 3:34 PM
"...kill one innocent, it is murder."
Guess neither of us live in Florida, where killing "innocents" is allowed.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 3:50 PM
Guess neither of us live in Florida, where killing "innocents" is allowed.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 3:50 PM
Oh now we bring up the politically racist Travon massacre.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 6:23 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 1:39 PM
Common, I asked two specific questions regarding a statement you made in the above noted post. Are you going to try ignoring them because you don't have an answer or there is not a good answer?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 6:33 PM
What innocent was murdered in Florida?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 6:48 PM
The case of bin Laden was different,-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 2:02 PM
For one simple reason - it's Obama. You posted we don't want to send in troops to kill terrorist because it would " send in US troops which would endanger our people". Then support the sending in troops to kill a terrorist.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:06 PM
"...in troops to kill a terrorist."
As usual, you misunderstand the situation, whether that's intentional or not remains a question. Ask someone else if there is a difference between "a terrorist" and bin Laden.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:23 PM
"...there is not a good answer?"
I would guess that you could easily look this up for yourself...
"Use of targeted killings by conventional military forces became commonplace in Israel during and after the Second Intifada, when Israeli security forces used the tactic to kill Palestinian opponents. Though initially opposed by the Bush Administration, targeted killings have become a frequent tactic of the United States government in the War on Terror. Instances of targeted killing by the United States that have received significant attention include the killing of Osama bin Laden and of American citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi in 2011. Under the Obama administration use of targeted killings has expanded, most frequently through use of combat drones operating in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen.
"The legality of targeted killing is disputed. Some academics, military personnel and officials describe targeted killing as legitimate within the context of self-defense, when employed against terrorists or combatants engaged in asymmetrical warfare. They argue that drones are more humane and more accurate than manned vehicles."
"The part of The Charter of the United Nations that regulates "action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression" is Chapter VII (articles 39-50), which requires that it is the Security Council that determines any threat to peace and decides on measures to be taken to maintain or restore peace. Article 51 mentions the only exception - members of the United Nations have "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:27 PM
I remember when selective assassinations were against at very minimum, policy if not indeed the law, in this country. I remember discussions pro and con on the subject. And killing a man on foreign soil with a Drone is nothing more or less than assassination. Give it whatever name makes you feel good about it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:37 PM
Killing Americans on foreign soil is a habit of the Obama administration. Neither Obama or Eric Holder seem to have a problem with executing Americans without trial.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:40 PM
Ask someone else if there is a difference between "a terrorist" and bin Laden. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:23 PM
You said drones should be used to kill terrorists regardless of the women and children in the room with them. Or their neighbors. You said drones are better than sending in our troops who could get hurt.
But you support sending in troops for the killing of bin Laden - a terrorist.
You don't have any principles but one - whatever Obama does is perfect. Dizzying spin talk today - nothing unusual from you.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 7:44 PM
After reading all the posts since I signed off, I'm glad we were able to enjoy the day and not waste time supporting the current president who I won't mention his name for fear of being too creepy.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Mar 19, 2014, at 8:09 PM
Hmmmmm!
Seems like I vaguely remember someone saying a few days ago that Russia might just find a new trading partner to sell their gas and oil to. Next winter might be even colder in Europe.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 12:40 AM
"...sending in our troops who could get hurt."
With all due respect, and in deference to the SH suggestions on civility, I still find it hard to believe that you cannot tell the difference between the degree of risk worthwhile to kill a high-value criminal murderer like bin Laden, and the appropriate use of drone attacks.
The justification for the use of a ground attack to eliminate bin Laden was to be 100% sure he was dead, and to remove his body. A drone could not do both.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 6:53 AM
BC
I feel that I am very far from a good understanding of the global situation and all of the egos that have to be massaged, but it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that when you quit producing goods and services/wealth a country becomes weaker.
The farther left we lean as a country the more anti-business we become.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 9:21 AM
What was the Russians position on the United States policy as we started annexing large areas of land as we grew westward, with the last grabs being Alaska and Hawaii I wonder?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 9:51 AM
Every one of the Navy seals that deployed on the bin Laden tour of duty were volunteers. No one was forced to go and they were all aware of the dangers.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:05 AM
Ummm...don't forget Russia sold us Alaska. I'd think they were pretty OK with that transaction.
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:00 AM
Wasn't forgetting that at all, just wondering how quickly someone would bring it up as justification while maintaining silence on the balance. Seward's Folly I believe is what they called it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:16 AM
Lefty,
Our entire military is voluntary, which leaves them open for whatever assignment they might get.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:18 AM
I was simply answering the part of your question I was able to.
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:23 AM
No, you were simply looking for something to find fault with in what I posted.
What if Russia says they were duped in the deal and demands it back? After all, it is closer to Russia than the Lower 48. We know that because Tina Fey/the faux Sarah Palin, said she could see if from her back door )or something similar).
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:29 AM
Your post asked a faulty question based on a faulty premise. I'm sorry giving the obvious answered offended you so.
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:35 AM
Didn't offend me at all.... I considered the source. In spite of your claims of superiority, I consider you just another minor PITA
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:52 AM
I believe I've heard it called Sewards Ice Box too.
-- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:36 AM
Yes they did.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:55 AM
An appropriate reponse when I said "Ummm...don't forget Russia sold us Alaska. I'd think they were pretty OK with that transaction." would have been something along the lines of:
"Oops, good point. I shouldn't have said Alaska. However, my question still stands with regard to Hawaii."
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 11:00 AM
And when did I appoint you as the ghost writer for what I should be saying?
You are a very presumptuous person. Did I ever ask you..... Were you an only child?
Another observation, you do not like being pointed out for what you truly are... do you?
Now, if you have not already done so... there is a little exclamation point in a circle at the bottom of this post and others I have made. Feel free to use it, if the truth bothers you.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 11:10 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 11:00 AM
Mic: Since you have all the guts , why don't you loan some of it to Obama. He Just issued more sanctions to Russia, why is he leaving out Putin?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 11:22 AM
Ok, Commander in Chief Miccheck. Guess the taking over a part of another country wasn't against protocol.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 11:40 AM
Wonder where Putin got the idea it was OK to invade a nation that had absolutely done nothing to him? Hmmmm ?
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 11:54 AM
Who says that your answer is correct, I'm sorry to point that out.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 11:55 AM
Who says that this nameless official is correct?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 12:12 PM
You're the google person, look it up yourself.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 12:19 PM
Saying it hasn't been done before is a weak excuse. If that was the case we would all still be living in a cave.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 12:38 PM
Maybe the message that we are sending now won't work....time will tell. Hopefully it will work but history says no.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 1:04 PM
Didn't offend me at all.... I considered the source. In spite of your claims of superiority, I consider you just another minor PITA
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 10:52 AM
Wow...more name calling! I'm SHOCKED!
-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 11:00 AM
I'm back already, and I feel the need to clairify for you.
You need to understand, I did not call you a name.
I gave a description of what you were to me, even though a minor one. No different than if I had said you wear a blonde wig, have blue eyes and a large mouth, and I don't like people who wear wigs.
Anything you said past that point I will now ignore and just attribute it to you venting.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 3:54 PM
Thank god that obama can feel like a man now that he has punished Putin and his cronies with sanctions.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Mar 22, 2014, at 9:45 AM
Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Mar 22, 2014, at 9:45 AM
FFF: I'm going to start referring the name of "Pinky" to Pres. Obama in my posts.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Mar 22, 2014, at 9:49 AM
Implications of the Ukrainian Situation for Gold
By Alasdair Macleod
GoldMoney.com
There is a fascinating story from Robert Peston, the BBC's business editor about his interview with Hank Paulson, who was the US treasury secretary at the time of the Lehman crisis. Paulson said that he was told by the Chinese that they had a message from the Russians suggesting they club together to drive down the prices of Fannie and Freddie "to maximise the turmoil on Wall Street". The Chinese declined, but in doing so they made sure the Treasury was aware that China and Russia know that between them they have the power to break western capital markets.
This presents a problem for NATO's geopolitical strategists, exposed by Russia's unchallenged absorption of Crimea. Assuming military options are a non-starter, the West's financial condition is too fragile to withstand an alternative financial war with the world's largest energy exporter and eighth largest economy, let alone a combination of Russia and China working together.America also has a problem in the Pacific containing China's territorial ambitions, including attempted possession of the Senkaku Islands from Japan and the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Unless America punishes Russia adequately for her take-over of Crimea, China may be encouraged to believe that the US is a push-over. At least, that is the worry in Washington.
This is why the US and also the UK would have gone much further than the more parochial EU in imposing sanctions against selected Russians and Ukrainians. The division of interests within NATO has allowed Putin to outmanoeuvre the west. He is now taking the steam out of the situation by stating he has no further plans with respect to other Ukrainian regions. However, this is not believed by the Ukrainian government and the West, nor indeed by the Russian people, who were given a more gung-ho message.
China's position in this should not be neglected. As co-founder with Russia of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), China is bound to be on Russia's side or at least to not oppose her, a point driven home by her abstention on a US-led resolution at the UN censuring Russia over Crimea. Only this morning, Putin publicly expressed his gratitude to China.
This means that the West is not just confronting Russia, but potentially China and the other SCO members as well. Russia's relationship with the SCO brings with it the possibility of using gold as a weapon against the West, because most governments involved with the SCO have been actively buying gold while western central banks have been providing it. So far the SCO members have been content to accumulate the west's gold on falling prices, being careful not to disrupt the market.
We cannot say the Ukrainian crisis is over. It is more than likely Putin will not be fully satisfied until there is a Russian-friendly government in Kiev. And if a senior Russian politician cares to have another conversation with China over maximising turmoil on Wall Street, driving up the gold price is the obvious financial weapon of choice.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Mar 22, 2014, at 7:52 PM
"China, as of now, has become the most economically and politically powerful nation on earth."
That may be somewhat of an exaggeration. Exactly what is it that China provides that is of critical, strategic value to us. It's not food, it's not fuel. Stocking Walmarts or a Hobby Lobby with cheap goods does not really give China any degree of power over the US. It's pretty clear that China needs the American (and world) markets much more that the US needs Chinese products.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 23, 2014, at 1:44 PM
Common, I think China's need of American markets is waning as it's world markets are growing. They have potential power over our economy by shifting their investments away from our dollar factory.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 23, 2014, at 11:49 PM
Menu
How long before obama decides to stroke his ego and prove his manhood by doing something unecessary and useless with regards to Russia and Ukraine?
Replies (101)