Is obama on Putin's side or is he just a useful idiot? You Decide

America didn't want another war after WW1, the war to end all wars. But then came WW2 and we tried like hell to stay out of it only to jump in too late which cost the US more in lives than if we got in the fight early on. I hope this time around our foreign policy experts won't make that mistake.

 

That's all okay when the biggest, baddest weapon on the field is a tank or a prop-driven airplane. Now it's 100% push button and our 'enemy' has a lot of buttons.

 

If President Obama declared war and allowed Putin to bring the world into WWIII, the right will whine.
If President Obama inacted sactions and froze the accounts of all leading Russians in the US, the right will whine.
If President Obama solves the issue through talks, the right will whine.
If President Obama does nothing, the right will whine.
See the pattern yet?

 

What I buy into is strength, not only in terms of our military readiness, but also in terms of strength diplomatically. Obama has shown no special support for the military and he's certainly weak in terms of international affairs.

 

Yes, the world is more dangerous because of nukes. Something Einstein knew would be the case. Governments haven't changed much though. They continue to fight over stupid crap.

 

It's truly amazing how these righties think we can win a nuclear war with the Russkies. Weren't they around when just two buildings came crashing down.

 

While Obama has handled this situation with his usual level of incompetence there is nothing that he or anyone else can do about it. Is anyone seriously suggesting we go to war with Russia over Crimea? This is the EUs problem not ours. They wouldn't be in the situation they are now if they hand't wasted all their money on their stupid social welfare states and kept their militaries up to date. Now they are years behind everyone else including Russia which has at least done some modernizing in recent years.

The EU made their bed now they can sleep in it. If they want to keep Crimea part of Ukraine then that is their responsibility.

 

We could be equally as strong militarily with less spending. Currently, there is a ton of waste in the military budget.

As far as diplomacy goes, Obama definitely isn't as much of cowboy as Bush was, but that's a good thing. Bush basically pissed off our allies. Obama isn't particularly popular either, but that's primarily because he's doing a lot of the same things as Bush.

In short, the mouthpiece doesn't matter that much in the end, since the agenda remains the same.

 

This is what happens when leftwingers can't argue. They go straight to the race card.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you blathering on about? I don't know if you are complimenting me or insulting me.

 

The Crimea is only a small part of the Ukraine, and quite frankly, other than the port of Sevastopol, not worth very much. I'm looking at the broader picture. Greater Ukraine has been stripped of its nuclear arsenal, stripped of most of its military power and told by the US and other powers, including the Chinese, that we would protect their sovereignty. If we renege, we are no better than Chamberlain and Daladier.

 

Perhaps to try to find an answer that makes any sense, we should return to one of Obama's more recent total ****-up's -- SYRIA. Oooh! Now, that wasn't the handiwork of either a clever conspirator, or some kind of master of foreign policy....

Obama is a light weight, empty-suit. He always has been. He is nothing but a politically correct "pretty face" that the hyperlib powerbrokers put up to front all their determined efforts to tear the roots out of this country and turn it into something completely different. These people know Socialism, per se, perfectly, but they know absolutely nothing about the REAL outside world, except that a lot of other countries are socialist, so why shouldn't we be, too...?

But Obama (and his handlers), are very sincere! They actually think that they do know what they're doing. Of course, it is obvious now to everyone else in the world (except loyal Libocrat voters in the USA) that he's an entertainer, a hand-puppet for the Federal Reserve Combine, and, a complete failure at being anything other than the community organizar "poster-boy" for a socialist Welfare State. As I have said in other posts in other threads, Vladimir Putin will kick his ass every time he makes the mistake of sticking it out....

 

Don't know, he said to tell Vlad he would have more flexibility after his next election.

- - - Updated - - -

Until now.

All aboard.....Load the boxcars.

 

No they aren't until it's too late.

 

Yes, one must think Obama wants this, siding with Russia. He usually does side with the enemy.

 

Not quite. First, Bush wanted out allies to have a the missile defense shield, Obama nixed it. Second, Bush was a strong friend and ally of Israel, Obama isn't. Third, Bush understood terrorism for what is, Obama treats it like a passing fad. No, when it comes to international affairs and the military, Bush and Obama are worlds apart.

 

You probably oughta let the grown-ups handle this one.

 

Nuclear disarmament was a bipartisan goal that required some consolation on our part to get the Russians to continue reducing their nuclear arsenal. Scrapping the shield in Poland was what became the tradeoff. This is one of those "hindsight is 20/20" things.

Obama is less conciliatory to Israel, but that's partly because he can't be. Netanyahu's radicalism is what has strained our relations with Israel. In order to preserve relations with our Islamic allies, we have to be guarded in our response.

If anything, you have to question why we should be deferential to Israel in the first place. They are an ally, but when they make actions that jeopardize our other relations, we have to respond accordingly.

The more deferential we become, the more it lends itself to the notion that Zionists are pulling the strings. Quite a lot of the rest of the West finds this situation both amusing and disturbing. Why should the most powerful country in the world kiss Israel's ass?

Both Bush and Obama have overblown the terrorism "threat." It's a ploy to get Americans paranoid and willing to give up their liberties for "security." Sadly, the tactic seems to be pretty effective, particularly among the right wing.

 

I wouldn't call helping Israel defend themselves against others who have openly stated they want Israel annihilated as "kissing their ass", but that's just me I guess.
As far as overblowing the threat of terrorism, I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about, but I guess you're cut from same cloth as Clinton who felt it wasn't a threat either.
Oh, and it wasn't right wingers who supported the TSA's tactics, they would have much preferred profiling, unlike the left who opposed it. And, unless you've forgotten, liberty took a huge blow thanks to O'care on terms set by liberal;s, not the right.

 

People are really stupid when it comes to Reagan


The point of the Star Wars program was to bankrupt the ussr. It worked perfectly.

Reagan knew the russian's communist economy was as fragile as fine china, and by scaring them into thinking that he could shoot down their missiles, they would go bankrupt trying to keep up.

It might not have worked if Russia wasn't bogged down in Afghanistan, but they were and it did.

- - - Updated - - -

Obama is looking at what Putin is doing with envious eyes.

If only he could get Americans to destroy their guns and ammo....

 

Insult noted. Like your posts are Nobel prize category???...

 

The handling of settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is what has led to Israel's problems. The ball is in Israel's court, but more often than not, they make decisions that lead to blowback. It doesn't help things when America backs those bad decisions, which is why our involvement should be aimed more at the two state solution.

And yes, the terror threat is vastly overblown. We have more to worry about from Mexican cartels and Wall Street than from Islamic terrorism.

As far as restricting liberties go, it has been a bipartisan problem. The first major step toward an invasive surveillance state was FISA back in the late 70s. After that, the next big step was the Patriot Act. After that, it was the NDAA detention clause. And now, we have become aware of what the NSA has been up to since 9/11.

So, I'm not suggesting only conservative politicians have brought us to this state, but I have noticed that right winger individuals seem more willing to make excuses for the surveillance state even when its abuses are made public. Too many of them buy into the paranoia of terrorism.

Thankfully, some members of the GOP (like Rand Paul) are starting to talk some sense into them, however. You really should listen more to the libertarian wing of your party. They make a lot more sense than the neocons.

 

Definitly not insulting you. At worst, just conveying a little dissapointment in the quality of the post I responded to.