If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   President Obama told President Putin on a call that sending troops to Ukraine flouted international law, ruined his Sunday, and he'll remove any Facebook likes he gave Putin, the very next time he's on Facebook ...... unless a staffer does it sooner   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 144
    More: Obvious, President Vladimir Putin, President Obama, Ukraine, Facebook, EU Foreign Policy, international laws, Ukraine flouted, Samantha Power  
•       •       •

2592 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 3:19 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-02 04:28:01 AM  
So the reset thing still on or what?


gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?



Because, if you make it a habit, your opponent starts to confuse your lengthy diplomacy efforts for simply running away.
He sooner resorts to driving over every border with tanks. This creates bigger diplomatic kerfuffles and the risk of more violence.

/and lets be honest, how much is any promise of security from the west worth if everyone who signs on either dies in a revolt or gets invaded?
/Not saying that nukes are the only answer, but a little saber rattling wouldn't hurt.
/Altho too much could be confused with parkinsons.
 
2014-03-02 04:30:24 AM  
For Christ's sake!  Can someone give the boy a bunch of bananas so he will just stfu!
 
2014-03-02 04:32:26 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]
It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.


Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.
 
2014-03-02 04:36:04 AM  

way south: So the reset thing still on or what?


gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?


Because, if you make it a habit, your opponent starts to confuse your lengthy diplomacy efforts for simply running away.
He sooner resorts to driving over every border with tanks. This creates bigger diplomatic kerfuffles and the risk of more violence.

/and lets be honest, how much is any promise of security from the west worth if everyone who signs on either dies in a revolt or gets invaded?
/Not saying that nukes are the only answer, but a little saber rattling wouldn't hurt.
/Altho too much could be confused with parkinsons.


For the same reason the USSR backed off and pulled their nukes (and military) from Cuba, the USA needs to not plant itself on another of Russia's borders.

And directly attacking Russia's military? Let's try talking first. Even without nukes, I don't want carrier groups to start sinking in random parts of the world.
 
2014-03-02 04:36:24 AM  
its really really important that Ukraine be a German puppet not a Russian puppet.
 
2014-03-02 04:39:36 AM  

eurotrader: The Ukraine does have its own pretty sizable military and they have stayed out of it so why should any other country even bother. Putin has always considered the Crimea part of Russia and the Naval base there important if Russia is ever to be considered a world power again or at least in the minds of Russians. Obama would have been better to ignore it publicly for the weekend and on Monday it should be done, It does not matter what he says it will be attacked anyway. There is no benefit to the US to do anything and most of the residents of the area speak Russian anyway and they western part in need of aid is still looking for cash.


While the reasons you have stated are very thought provoking, they will not deter an idiot.  Better let Obama know that the Crimea can happily boast:  "No we have no bananas!"

/on an aside
/this comment is not meant to be racists but, then again liberal America considers anyone who pokes fun at any person of color (which should certainly include Benny Hill in blackface) a racist.
/A double secret racist if they disagree with him
 
2014-03-02 04:41:01 AM  

super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]
It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.


Now find me examples of Olberhann, Maher, or Moore calling for killing fellow Americans.
Or went out and murdered people.
Find me some left-wing McVeighs, Pages, Harphams, Thomases, Rudolphs, and Kahls.
 
2014-03-02 04:42:32 AM  

super_grass: Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.


Who says I hate them? I find their politics of division and their lies disgusting.
 
2014-03-02 04:46:05 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]
It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.

Now find me examples of Olberhann, Maher, or Moore calling for killing fellow Americans.
Or went out and murdered people.
Find me some left-wing McVeighs, Pages, Harphams, Thomases, Rudolphs, and Kahls.


Don't let the wingnut advocating for WW3 derail the conversation. Walk it back each time. Make him own his stances. Otherwise it's just another gish gallop and you're chasing along as he fills the thread with useless noise.
 
2014-03-02 04:48:03 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]
It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.

Now find me examples of Olberhann, Maher, or Moore calling for killing fellow Americans.
Or went out and murdered people.
Find me some left-wing McVeighs, Pages, Harphams, Thomases, Rudolphs, and Kahls.


A fifteen second search will find just as many quotes going the other way. That's just how low quality political discussion is.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2010/03/30/violent_libera l_ hate_rhetoric_fifteen_quotes/page/full

All of this is besides the point of why the hell are you judging half the country based on the absolute worst examples you find? Would you judge all Muslims over Osama or all animal rights activists because of PETA? The left had a huge rash of terrorism in the cold war era too, clearly McCarthy was right.
 
2014-03-02 04:49:56 AM  
Or maybe, just maybe, Obama promised Putin most of the following:

- Kick Russia out of the G8
- EU stops buying Russian gas and oil (petro exports to Europe are the only thing separating Russia from third-world shiatholes)
- Full NATO and EU membership for Western Ukraine, with treaty protection
- Sanctions, trade restrictions, including personal travel bans and asset seizures against Putin and his oligarchs (no more villas in the tropics)

Were all that to happen, Russia's power would be halved within a decade.  Long term, this invasion looks like a bad move for Russia.
 
2014-03-02 04:51:14 AM  
More Gish Gallop from the WW3 Chickenhawk. Watch him squirm as he deflects and derails from his repulsive position, but in the process reveal his true motives.
 
2014-03-02 04:52:57 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: demaL-demaL-yeH: zerkalo: Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.

Thanks for reminding me of another disgusting characteristic of the Birchers and their FoxNews-viewing followers: They really believe that fellow Americans who don't agree with their politics are enemies.

There's a double-poe going on here I just know it.

[img353.imageshack.us image 399x240]
It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?

Imaginary people who joke about shooting people they disagree with in a Russia discussion aside, I was talking about accusing others of being sympathetic to an anti-american leader and then accuse them of labeling people who they disagree with the enemy.

It's a sign of political hysteria, or at least lack of self awareness.

Don't try to tell me that the current crop of Republicans don't claim these values. Don't tell me that Ann Coulter, Roger Ailes and his talking hairdo crew, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of talk radio aren't espousing those views and calling "liberals" - whatever that means - "enemies of America." Tell me those stickers, and many more with messages along those lines, are imaginary, and that I don't see them plastered on the backs of vehicles pretty much daily.

Those radio loudmouths represent half of America as much as Olbermann, Mahler, or Moore do the other.

And last time I checked, none of them shot anyone for disagreeing. Don't assume that those other people hate you as much as you hate them.

Now find me examples of Olberhann, Maher, or Moore calling for killing fellow Americans.
Or went out and murdered people.
Find me some left-wing McVeighs, Pages, Harphams, Thomases, Rudolphs, and Kahls.

Don't let the wingnut advocating for WW3 derail the conversation. Walk it back each time. Make him own his stances. Otherwis ...


I didn't notice him. Care to point him out?
 
2014-03-02 04:56:07 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?


Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.
 
2014-03-02 04:57:05 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Don't let the wingnut advocating for WW3 derail the conversation. Walk it back each time. Make him own his stances. Otherwise it's just another gish gallop and you're chasing along as he fills the thread with useless noise.


What Russia is doing on sovereign Ukraine territory is extremely dangerous and provocative.
This is the kind of nightmare that haunts military planners, diplomats, and sane people everywhere.
Putin's move greatly strengthens the interim government in Ukraine: By invading, he gave Ukrainians a common external enemy to unite against.
They may have had strong disagreements about whether to align more closely with Russia or with the West, but since independence, they've come to think of themselves as Ukrainians.
 
2014-03-02 04:59:46 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Wake Up Sheeple: Don't let the wingnut advocating for WW3 derail the conversation. Walk it back each time. Make him own his stances. Otherwise it's just another gish gallop and you're chasing along as he fills the thread with useless noise.

What Russia is doing on sovereign Ukraine territory is extremely dangerous and provocative.
This is the kind of nightmare that haunts military planners, diplomats, and sane people everywhere.
Putin's move greatly strengthens the interim government in Ukraine: By invading, he gave Ukrainians a common external enemy to unite against.
They may have had strong disagreements about whether to align more closely with Russia or with the West, but since independence, they've come to think of themselves as Ukrainians.


It is. And it's very delicate. Some people in this thread are calling for the USA to intervene militarily right off the bat. I believe they're insane, or at the very least, extremely ignorant.
 
2014-03-02 05:00:32 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.


Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.
 
2014-03-02 05:03:19 AM  

super_grass: clearly McCarthy was right.


That's why the CTC is tracking violent left wing groups.
 
2014-03-02 05:06:15 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: way south: So the reset thing still on or what?


gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?


Because, if you make it a habit, your opponent starts to confuse your lengthy diplomacy efforts for simply running away.
He sooner resorts to driving over every border with tanks. This creates bigger diplomatic kerfuffles and the risk of more violence.

/and lets be honest, how much is any promise of security from the west worth if everyone who signs on either dies in a revolt or gets invaded?
/Not saying that nukes are the only answer, but a little saber rattling wouldn't hurt.
/Altho too much could be confused with parkinsons.

For the same reason the USSR backed off and pulled their nukes (and military) from Cuba, the USA needs to not plant itself on another of Russia's borders.

And directly attacking Russia's military? Let's try talking first. Even without nukes, I don't want carrier groups to start sinking in random parts of the world.



If you're afraid that they'll use anti ship weapons they've never tested successfully (much less threatened to use against you) to the point that you can't even pretend you're willing to use force, they'll just keep pushing. 
Our "no" doesn't have any meaning behind it.

/Openly allow one encroachment after another
/but suddenly you're miffed when they build an invasion fleet and plant some missiles off of Florida.
/Of course the Kremlin will get confused when you're sending mixed signals all the time.
 
2014-03-02 05:06:43 AM  

RandomRandom: EU stops buying Russian gas and oil...


That's probably the EU's call and not Obama's, but he could threaten to drop any and all resistance to Bakken drilling and distribution, giving the EU another oil buying option.

Or, he could promise more resistance to U.S. oil development, in exchange for a quiet resolution to the current crisis.
 
2014-03-02 05:07:00 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: super_grass: clearly McCarthy was right.

That's why the CTC is tracking violent left wing groups.


Is that supposed to prove something? There were left wing terrorist groups too, would you have voted strait line conservative if you were in the 70s?

http://terrorism.about.com/od/originshistory/a/LeftWingTerror.htm
 
2014-03-02 05:07:22 AM  

super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.


Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.
 
2014-03-02 05:15:58 AM  

way south: Wake Up Sheeple: way south: So the reset thing still on or what?


gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?


Because, if you make it a habit, your opponent starts to confuse your lengthy diplomacy efforts for simply running away.
He sooner resorts to driving over every border with tanks. This creates bigger diplomatic kerfuffles and the risk of more violence.

/and lets be honest, how much is any promise of security from the west worth if everyone who signs on either dies in a revolt or gets invaded?
/Not saying that nukes are the only answer, but a little saber rattling wouldn't hurt.
/Altho too much could be confused with parkinsons.

For the same reason the USSR backed off and pulled their nukes (and military) from Cuba, the USA needs to not plant itself on another of Russia's borders.

And directly attacking Russia's military? Let's try talking first. Even without nukes, I don't want carrier groups to start sinking in random parts of the world.

If you're afraid that they'll use anti ship weapons they've never tested successfully (much less threatened to use against you) to the point that you can't even pretend you're willing to use force, they'll just keep pushing.


Anti ship weapons, such as carriers, jets, submarines, and missiles? You think Russia is some podunk 3rd World military, slinging arrows and rocks? Holy heck you're naive.


Our "no" doesn't have any meaning behind it.

/Openly allow one encroachment after another
/but suddenly you're miffed when they build an invasion fleet and plant some missiles off of Florida.
/Of course the Kremlin will get confused when you're sending mixed signals all the time.


Telling someone to not do something that is not good, and trying to be diplomatic first, then slowly escalating, is not a good tactic? No one in the world was going to mind if we blew the USSR into a giant smoking super-crater for sneakily putting nukes 90 miles off our coast. Build a consensus, and a coalition. Then start rattling that saber.
 
2014-03-02 05:18:00 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.


That's just weak, I mean, your position makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

America doesn't outspend the next ten military budgets combined for nothing. I'd be pissed if the military didn't use that force to contain local powers in check after all the money dumped into it. I don't want a shooting war, but if the US can be opportunistic in keeping the Kremlin in check then I'm all for it.

And China is not going to take Taiwan or the Spratlys any time soon, Taiwan and Japan has enough US military aid to put up a decent fight themselves if push comes to blow.
 
2014-03-02 05:19:36 AM  
What we need now is a goosestepping dick-in-hand neocon chickenhawk who never served in the military, except maybe a silverspoon VIP National Guard unit, to send lower middle class kids off to die while providing tax cuts to his rich cronies.

Because freedum ain't free.
 
2014-03-02 05:20:33 AM  
There is a treaty. It is LAW that we intervene. LAW.

Full faith and credit on the US of A. Ratified by the Senate and signed by the president. It is LAW.

I do not want war with Russia, but it is LAW.

Kicu them out .
 
2014-03-02 05:21:57 AM  

gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?


Because
Bush was an idiot and Obama is the smartest president ever
 
2014-03-02 05:23:14 AM  

DamnYankees: This is just the weirdest talking point. Can anyone give a single actual military option they want Obama to employ?


Realistically, I can't. But in a perfect world, I'd love to assist Ukrainians militarily with weapons and training.

Once you're injured, the dogs start circling to pick your bones clean. Someday this will happen to us and it's gonna be ugly. I hate to see it happen to any country that was struggling for progress.

Russia is a festering cesspool of good old boy and old ways corruption. In many ways, Putin is really holding them back and he's duplicitous as hell playing the lover during the Olympics and the fighter the moment the press is out of his face.
 
2014-03-02 05:27:16 AM  

super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.

That's just weak, I mean, your position makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

America doesn't outspend the next ten military budgets combined for nothing. I'd be pissed if the military didn't use that force to contain local powers in check after all the money dumped into it. I don't want a shooting war, but if the US can be opportunistic in keeping the Kremlin in check then I'm all for it.

And China is not going to take Taiwan or the Spratlys any time soon, Taiwan and Japan has enough US military aid to put up a decent fight themselves if push comes to blow.


You ARE advocating WW3. And for unimportant territories that will be fine regardless. You're insane.
 
2014-03-02 05:27:48 AM  
In this case I have to agree that Russia has no a whole lot of options regarding keeping their seaports accessible but if this is about Obama and his uselessness... C'mon Dems. In all reality, and strictly speaking of foreign policy what has Obama done besides sit on his hands?
NOT ONE. GOD. DAMN. USEFUL. THING.
We need to give this coont of man(?) the Nobel Peace Prize for something.. We'll think of a reason after the fact..
 
2014-03-02 05:30:15 AM  
They're calling in alt airstrikes to the thread. Meh.. just more highlights. Back to lurk mode. Have fun.
 
2014-03-02 05:30:28 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Why do people feel that Obama can't first open a dialogue with Putin, trying to diplomatically solve a situation, rather than go in guns blazing like a Texan cowboy?

F'ing morans.


Because anyone who is an actual military strategist isn't wasting time typing responses on Fark.com. These people are Armchair Military Strategists with no vision for the future and no comprehension for the consequences war.

They want ACTION NOW NO WAFFLING OR DECISION MAKING THAT'S FOR PUSSIES
 
2014-03-02 05:31:30 AM  

SilentStrider: I'm sure Bush would have been much more decisive in handling this situation.
Of course he'd probably decide to attack New Zealand. But hey, you can't have everything.


Well, why shouldn't we attack New Zealand?

Everyone knows that Russia is invading EWEkraine!

And where do ewes come from?

New Zealand!!

DUH!
 
2014-03-02 05:32:48 AM  
"Officials in Kiev had earlier said Russia had already dispatched 30 armored personnel carriers and 6,000 additional troops "

It's an APC, not a damn clown car!

that's like...200 folks per APC, unless they are riding on them train-in-India style.
 
2014-03-02 05:37:46 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.

That's just weak, I mean, your position makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

America doesn't outspend the next ten military budgets combined for nothing. I'd be pissed if the military didn't use that force to contain local powers in check after all the money dumped into it. I don't want a shooting war, but if the US can be opportunistic in keeping the Kremlin in check then I'm all for it.

And China is not going to take Taiwan or the Spratlys any time soon, Taiwan and Japan has enough US military aid to put up a decent fight themselves if push comes to blow.

You ARE advocating WW3. And for unimportant territories that will be fine regardless. You're insane.


The US intervened in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, and WWIII has yet to start, and that's WITH shots fired, which nobody is advocating now.

WWIII is only going to happen if leaders were like you and recoiled at their own shadows, which thank god they're not. Park some battleships in nearby, speak softly, and carry a big stick.
 
2014-03-02 05:45:40 AM  

super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: gsiofa: Bush didn't involve the U.S. in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, and a diplomatic effort from France/EU led to a ceasefire. Why should Obama lead the U.S. into war now?

We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.

Are you serious? Are you advocating for military intervention against Russia?

Answer this question, super_grass. I'm not quoting your right-wing vitriol you spewed later in the thread.

Calm down, bro. You're the one being all angry and passive aggressive.

You can achieve these goals without firing a shot, like how we kept the Spratly islands or Taiwan away from China without a single nuke launched.

And I consider myself one of the libbiest lib who ever libbed, so check yourself.

Or how we successfully kept Korea as one nation, or how we kept South Vietnam from being overrun?

China still considers Taiwan part of its territory, and we've stepped back. If China wants it, we're going to retreat rather than lob nukes and lose carrier groups, and China damn well knows it.

You can also call yourself "the libbiest lib" but you're advocating positions that are contrary. You need to look into a mirror. Talk about not being self-aware.

That's just weak, I mean, your position makes Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

America doesn't outspend the next ten military budgets combined for nothing. I'd be pissed if the military didn't use that force to contain local powers in check after all the money dumped into it. I don't want a shooting war, but if the US can be opportunistic in keeping the Kremlin in check then I'm all for it.

And China is not going to take Taiwan or the Spratlys any time soon, Taiwan and Japan has enough US military aid to put up a decent fight themselves if push comes to blow.

You ARE advocating WW3. And for unimportant territories that will be fine regardless. You're insane.


The US intervened in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, and WWIII has yet to start, and that's WITH shots fired, which nobody is advocating now.
WWIII is only going to happen if leaders were like you and recoiled at their own shadows, which thank god they're not. Park some battleships in nearby, speak softly, and carry a big stick.


Nope. I know the difference between a small country's military, and engaging Russia's or China's military.

To win Korea or Vietnam, we would've needed to fight to China's border and engage their troops. We blinked because we're not insane and realized that holding onto a small territory to save face was.

Sorry. No matter how you feel, no matter the president in the White House, he/she's not going to engage Russia or China directly.
 
2014-03-02 05:55:03 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Nope. I know the difference between a small country's military, and engaging Russia's or China's military.

To win Korea or Vietnam, we would've needed to fight to China's border and engage their troops. We blinked because we're not insane and realized that holding onto a small territory to save face was.

Sorry. No matter how you feel, no matter the president in the White House, he/she's not going to engage Russia or China directly.


Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.
 
2014-03-02 05:56:45 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-02 06:00:33 AM  
super_grass:

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.


I'm glad you back pedaled on that point. I take back the insane. You're just naive. Russia will do as she pleases with Ukraine. No carrier group is going to make them rethink anything, if anything, it might escalate the conflict. However, negotiating like two rational adults might just work. You know... talking. I doubt you open your real-life disagreements with a punch, or showing a glint of a knife.
 
2014-03-02 06:03:03 AM  

OscarTamerz: Poland and the rest of eastern Europe got sold into Soviet slavery by the democrats after being our invaluable allies by giving us the Enigma machine and running the best resistance in Europe until it was betrayed by Stalin at Warsaw. The democrats didn't approve of going back into Vietnam when the north was steamrolling them despite the peace treaty which said we would. Now Ukraine is asking us and NATO to honor the treaty we signed saying we'd protect their territorial integrity in exchange for giving up their nukes 20 years ago. To quote Animal House, "You screwed up, you trusted us." Obama's not going to break the democrats' perfect record of betrayal. The Russians murdered 8 million Ukrainians by starving them to death in a single winter causing The New York Times reporter to quip, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." I wonder how many. Ukrainians the Russians will kill this time and I wonder what aphorism the New York Times will come up with this time.


And you would've preferred, what? Operation Unthinkable? War with Russia is a bad thing, okay?
 
2014-03-02 06:07:14 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass:

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.

I'm glad you back pedaled on that point. I take back the insane. You're just naive. Russia will do as she pleases with Ukraine. No carrier group is going to make them rethink anything, if anything, it might escalate the conflict. However, negotiating like two rational adults might just work. You know... talking. I doubt you open your real-life disagreements with a punch, or showing a glint of a knife.


What did I backpedal on? Some imaginary statement I made about aggression towards Russia? Diplomacy is backed by force or the threat of it, which the US should absolutely take advantage of.

And for you information, the last World War started over unchecked regional aggression, not deterrent and immediate response.
 
2014-03-02 06:10:02 AM  
Does Putin not realize he's dealing with a community organizer here?!

/fool better recognize
 
2014-03-02 06:18:45 AM  
 
2014-03-02 06:20:29 AM  
Obama be outsmarting dat cracker Putin
 
2014-03-02 06:24:06 AM  

super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass:

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.

I'm glad you back pedaled on that point. I take back the insane. You're just naive. Russia will do as she pleases with Ukraine. No carrier group is going to make them rethink anything, if anything, it might escalate the conflict. However, negotiating like two rational adults might just work. You know... talking. I doubt you open your real-life disagreements with a punch, or showing a glint of a knife.

What did I backpedal on? Some imaginary statement I made about aggression towards Russia? Diplomacy is backed by force or the threat of it, which the US should absolutely take advantage of.

And for you information, the last World War started over unchecked regional aggression, not deterrent and immediate response.


And now it's "imaginary." The record in the posts above bears me out.

Diplomacy starts with talking. Sending carrier groups to Russia's backyard will escalate badly. Do you think Russia is a 3rd World banana republic military that can be easily steamrolled with a swift boat and a couple of machine guns? Russia will not want us in Ukraine just as much as we didn't want Russia in Cuba.

WW2 was a lot more complicated. This is a border dispute between a super-power and a renegade state, essentially an unresolved civil war if you want to be technical. Super-power. Let's repeat that. Let that sink in. This is global conflict at the flip of a switch. Anything the US can do, Russia can do. Maybe not better, maybe for not as long, but it'll hurt like a mofo, and it'll still last for quite some time.

Nope. Let's work this through all the channels first before the military.
 
2014-03-02 06:24:37 AM  

boinkingbill: voking, they will not deter an idiot. Better let Obama know that the Crimea can happily boast: "No we have no bananas!"

/on an aside
/this comment is not meant to be racists but, then again liberal America considers anyone who pokes fun at any person of color (which should certainly include Benny Hill in blackface) a racist.

Benny Hill and the UK don't exactly have the same history with racism as we do in the states. But of course you know that don't you?
 
2014-03-02 06:25:40 AM  

Gentoolive: Does Putin not realize he's dealing with a community organizer here?!

/fool better recognize


image.dhgate.com
 
2014-03-02 06:29:17 AM  

echomike23: gerbilpox: [i.imgur.com image 530x428]

meanwhile

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/world/asia/north-korea-missiles/


shiat man, I launched some bottle rockets into my backyard the other day. Scared the hell out of a flock of starlings. Which is more than Kim Jong 2 can say.
 
2014-03-02 06:32:06 AM  

Gentoolive: Does Putin not realize he's dealing with a community organizer here?!

/fool better recognize


Describe to me the course of action you believe we should take.
 
2014-03-02 06:36:09 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass: Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass:

Once again, I'm not trying to start a war. Both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against soviet-backed troops. What's happening now is Russia playing rough in a sovereign nation that chooses to let a Russian base stay - much like how a lot of countries voluntarily let American bases stay on their soil.

Having a US force nearby might prevent Russia from playing too rough, and give Ukrainians a sense of safety if they choose to get closer to EU circles or vote to kick Russia out as a result. They can choose not to do that of course and the US will just leave of course.

I'm glad you back pedaled on that point. I take back the insane. You're just naive. Russia will do as she pleases with Ukraine. No carrier group is going to make them rethink anything, if anything, it might escalate the conflict. However, negotiating like two rational adults might just work. You know... talking. I doubt you open your real-life disagreements with a punch, or showing a glint of a knife.

What did I backpedal on? Some imaginary statement I made about aggression towards Russia? Diplomacy is backed by force or the threat of it, which the US should absolutely take advantage of.

And for you information, the last World War started over unchecked regional aggression, not deterrent and immediate response.

And now it's "imaginary." The record in the posts above bears me out.

Diplomacy starts with talking. Sending carrier groups to Russia's backyard will escalate badly. Do you think Russia is a 3rd World banana republic military that can be easily steamrolled with a swift boat and a couple of machine guns? Russia will not want us in Ukraine just as much as we didn't want Russia in Cuba.

WW2 was a lot more complicated. This is a border dispute between a super-power and a renegade state, essentially an unresolved civil war if you want to be technical. Super-power. Let's repeat that. Let that sink in. This is global conflict at the flip of a switch. A ...


Russia is not the USSR, and they have fallen a lot since then. They're not nearly as unstable as you think, which we can see with the various US bases established next to it after the USSR collapsed.

We don't have to treat Russia as an equal now, and having a military deterrent prevents a bigger diplomatic crisis from emerging out of Ukraine in the first place.
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report