Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2607 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 3:19 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-03-01 10:42:39 PM  
Sounds like a plan to me.

Maybe we should follow the Fox News agenda and go all in for WWIII.
 
2014-03-01 10:58:51 PM  

EvilEeyore: Sounds like a plan to me.

Maybe we should follow the Fox News agenda and go all in for WWIII.


Go watch Jesus Camp and tell me they're not on their knees right now praying for the rapture to occur.
 
2014-03-01 11:01:29 PM  
The world knows he is impotent. Look at the fiasco Syria and his line in the sand.
 
2014-03-02 12:20:08 AM  
Aww, sad. We're not going to get into a long, drawn out, pointless war halfway around the world that has minimal impact on ourselves as a country?

*sigh*
 
2014-03-02 12:33:07 AM  

feckingmorons: The world knows he is impotent. Look at the fiasco Syria and his line in the sand.


Syria is only a fiasco because the global community at large didn't have the stones to take Bashir's regime out years ago.  Instead, they let him fester for decades, and then wring their hands (incl Obama) when it is far too late to anything effective, and the once civilian opposition has been infected by lunatics.
 
2014-03-02 12:33:11 AM  
HOW DARE HE ATTEMPT TO EMPLOY DIPLOMACY!!!
 
2014-03-02 12:34:04 AM  
We have enough on our plate, let's let Putin have this one
 
2014-03-02 12:36:34 AM  
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.
 
2014-03-02 12:36:34 AM  

feckingmorons: The world knows he is impotent. Look at the fiasco Syria and his line in the sand.


Or rather, he realized that the majority of the country, including the vast majority of the people who elected him and support the Democratic party, didn't want another war, especially one in which we'd be either supporting the Assad regime or al qaeda, and thus he pulled back on the reins so that the Syrians can sort that mess out themselves.

This seems like another opportunity to keep our noses out of it.  If the conflict ends up becoming more than a flash-in-the-pan and starts to spill into the rest of Europe, we can step in.  Until then, this is an issue between the Ukraine and Russia, they can work the solution out themselves.
 
2014-03-02 12:45:40 AM  
This is just the weirdest talking point. Can anyone give a single actual military option they want Obama to employ?
 
2014-03-02 12:45:51 AM  
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.
 
2014-03-02 01:14:30 AM  

feckingmorons: The world knows he is impotent. Look at the fiasco Syria and his line in the sand.


You mean that time we got Syria to stop using chemical weapons without having to fight another war?

You're an idiot chickenhawk who has no f*cking clue what it actually means to escalate to violence in this world, especially violence thousands of miles away from the shores of America, and last I checked that was more important than policing the whole f*cking world especially since no one is paying us for the privilege.

Get a life.
 
2014-03-02 01:16:04 AM  

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


Drop the 101st into Sevastopol!

Bomb Moscow!

Drone strike Putin!

Have Mom bring down more Hot Pockets!
 
2014-03-02 01:25:13 AM  
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI!!!

Cripes, just when I've managed to nail the proper progression of manufactured outrage, I have to learn a new mantra.  Ah, the lot in life of the mindless Tea Party drone.
 
2014-03-02 01:31:28 AM  

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


Obama is weak because:
1) He didn't send strong language about a former superpower's encroachment into another sovereign nation.

Oh he did?

Well he's weak because:
2) He sent strong language but doesn't have the guts to start another war thousands of miles away against another nuclear armed nation.

See? I was right. Obama is such a chickensh*t pussy because he doesn't want to start World War III.
 
2014-03-02 03:00:37 AM  

bdub77: feckingmorons: The world knows he is impotent. Look at the fiasco Syria and his line in the sand.

You mean that time we got Syria to stop using chemical weapons without having to fight another war?


Only a complete idiot would seriously believe that that was the real purpose of all that. It was an obvious attempt to open the door for bombing the Baathist military in order to save the Western/Saudi-backed mercenaries' asses. Assad and Putin let the CWs go (if there even were any) as a sacrificial lamb to make Obama look foolish and hypocritical if he didn't take yes for an answer. All the pearls-clutching about CWs was either an obvious ploy to carry out bombings of general military targets, or honest and hopelessly naive.
 
2014-03-02 03:25:41 AM  

1.bp.blogspot.com

Why can't I just eat my waffle?

 
2014-03-02 03:25:42 AM  
There are good ways to avoid going to war. Proving to the world you are indecisive and in over your head is not one of them.
 
2014-03-02 03:26:49 AM  
Since when did the USA worry about flouting international law?  What, is that only OK when we do it?
 
2014-03-02 03:33:00 AM  

TheWhoppah: Since when did the USA worry about flouting international law?  What, is that only OK when we do it?


The US just doesn't want Russia to expand its sphere of influence even bigger under the guise of protecting its naval base, especially with violence in another country.

That said, Russia has nukes. I don't think anyone wants to see a shooting war.
 
2014-03-02 03:33:06 AM  

TheWhoppah: Since when did the USA worry about flouting international law?  What, is that only OK when we do it?



"It is the last territorial claim that I have to make in Europe." - Vladimir Putin
 
2014-03-02 03:34:42 AM  
 
2014-03-02 03:34:45 AM  
Thirteen thousand comments? Jeez the chickenhawks are out in force over on Yahoo.
 
2014-03-02 03:40:22 AM  
Republicans have battered-wife syndrome regarding Putin. They can't comprehend how anti-American he is because he is the enemy of their enemy.
 
2014-03-02 03:43:04 AM  

RanDomino: bdub77: feckingmorons: The world knows he is impotent. Look at the fiasco Syria and his line in the sand.

You mean that time we got Syria to stop using chemical weapons without having to fight another war?

Only a complete idiot would seriously believe that that was the real purpose of all that. It was an obvious attempt to open the door for bombing the Baathist military in order to save the Western/Saudi-backed mercenaries' asses. Assad and Putin let the CWs go (if there even were any) as a sacrificial lamb to make Obama look foolish and hypocritical if he didn't take yes for an answer. All the pearls-clutching about CWs was either an obvious ploy to carry out bombings of general military targets, or honest and hopelessly naive.


The "real purpose of that" is the Syrian regime is in the middle of a civil war, which doesn't actually have anything to do with us, and didn't want the US to destroy the only real advantages he has - heavy armor, air assets and artillery. Which is what would all turn in to piles of scrap within 48 hours if the US imposed the no-fly zone we were threatening to impose at the time after a couple of chemical weapons attacks. That's it. Pretty simple actually. We made a credible threat and Assad acted in his own best interests.

Of course if you WANT to believe in some retarded 3-dimensional chess fantasy/conspiracy, by all means... Turn up the volume on Fox news and masturbate harder.
 
2014-03-02 03:44:08 AM  
Reading Fark headlines just makes me pray for cancer these days. If you can't be the least bit funny, or at least not cause age lines on your readers, don't try to be funny.
 
2014-03-02 03:46:47 AM  

Standard Deviant: There are good ways to avoid going to war. Proving to the world you are indecisive and in over your head is not one of them.


Yes, this is the problem. Obama didn't want this problem so he pretended it didn't exist.
 
2014-03-02 03:47:33 AM  
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?
 
2014-03-02 03:48:57 AM  
Thinking out loud here...I wonder what affect this will have on the markets Monday morning.
 
2014-03-02 03:48:59 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?


We can manage to cut off Russia on its one military port in the Caspian sea.
 
2014-03-02 03:49:06 AM  
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.
 
2014-03-02 03:52:24 AM  

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.
 
2014-03-02 03:52:54 AM  

RanDomino: bdub77: feckingmorons: The world knows he is impotent. Look at the fiasco Syria and his line in the sand.

You mean that time we got Syria to stop using chemical weapons without having to fight another war?

Only a complete idiot would seriously believe that that was the real purpose of all that. It was an obvious attempt to open the door for bombing the Baathist military in order to save the Western/Saudi-backed mercenaries' asses. Assad and Putin let the CWs go (if there even were any) as a sacrificial lamb to make Obama look foolish and hypocritical if he didn't take yes for an answer. All the pearls-clutching about CWs was either an obvious ploy to carry out bombings of general military targets, or honest and hopelessly naive.


I'm honestly intrigued, as I hadn't followed that angle. Do you have some links I can read?
 
2014-03-02 03:54:00 AM  

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.


No, thank you. I'd rather my children live.

/And not glow in the dark.
 
2014-03-02 03:54:24 AM  

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.
 
2014-03-02 03:54:58 AM  

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.


What are you saying, exactly? Neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are located along the Caspian Sea (they're on the Black Sea). Maybe it's too early in the morning where I am...
 
2014-03-02 03:56:06 AM  

gsiofa: 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.

What are you saying, exactly? Neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are located along the Caspian Sea (they're on the Black Sea). Maybe it's too early in the morning where I am...


I was thinking of the Black Sea, brainfart on my part.
 
2014-03-02 03:56:07 AM  
Obama broke out the EARTHQUAKE MACHINE again.

Can you even feel a 3.2?
 
2014-03-02 03:57:33 AM  

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.


The Black Sea, not the Caspian.. the Caspian Sea is landlocked, and worthless for navies.
 
2014-03-02 03:57:59 AM  

gsiofa: 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.

What are you saying, exactly? Neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are located along the Caspian Sea (they're on the Black Sea). Maybe it's too early in the morning where I am...


Hush now.
Mr. double-Poe was on a roll.
 
2014-03-02 04:00:01 AM  
Well, personally, I'm entertained by all these world events directly related to, and usually caused by the black guy.
 
2014-03-02 04:03:01 AM  

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
It's wrong of me to find the mindset that produces crap like this disgusting?
 
2014-03-02 04:04:07 AM  

super_grass: gsiofa: 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.

What are you saying, exactly? Neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are located along the Caspian Sea (they're on the Black Sea). Maybe it's too early in the morning where I am...

I was thinking of the Black Sea, brainfart on my part.


It's just a small straight the Russians had to cross to enter the Crimea peninsula directly from Russia, so it's not that much different from the ground invasion into Georgia, right? So what's to cut off? You'd have to block the straight, and constantly patrol the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea to be effective. Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass, but the situation seems best for a diplomatic intervention considering nearly every world leader is scheduled to be at the Nuclear Security Summit in two weeks, and the annual G8 summit is supposed to be in Russia in a month.
 
2014-03-02 04:04:22 AM  

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?
 
2014-03-02 04:08:39 AM  

phrawgh: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 280x290]Why can't I just eat my waffle?


Damn you, now I want Belgian waffles. At motherf*cking 1 AM. And I don't own a waffle iron.
 
2014-03-02 04:10:41 AM  

Triumph: Obama broke out the EARTHQUAKE MACHINE again.

Can you even feel a 3.2?


That's sorta what my girlfriend said.

/Sorta would be girlfriend
//Ok, she's a doll that speaks
///In my mind
////Just making light in this thread
 
2014-03-02 04:11:39 AM  

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.
 
2014-03-02 04:19:37 AM  
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.
 
2014-03-02 04:24:04 AM  

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.
 
2014-03-02 04:24:13 AM  
No answer. Guess I'll just add "Wants WW3" to his label. That label's getting a lot of usage in this thread...
 
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.
 
2014-03-02 06:38:34 AM  
super_grass:
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.


Fool.
 
2014-03-02 06:40:26 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: super_grass:
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.

Fool.


Looks like your argument just went the way of Russian military strength.
 
2014-03-02 06:48:28 AM  

Bloody William: 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.


Bring all of our soldiers home, protect our own borders and mind our own business?
 
2014-03-02 06:52:53 AM  

Gentoolive: Bloody William: 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.

Bring all of our soldiers home, protect our own borders and mind our own business?


That would be "isolationism", do you know who else is an isolationist? That's right, RAND PAUL.
 
2014-03-02 06:55:37 AM  

Gentoolive: Bloody William: 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.

Bring all of our soldiers home, protect our own borders and mind our own business?


Are you serious? How the hell are we gonna justify the billions of military spending we want if all we do is protect the country?
 
2014-03-02 07:09:34 AM  

phrawgh: TheWhoppah: Since when did the USA worry about flouting international law?  What, is that only OK when we do it?


"It is the last territorial claim that I have to make in Europe." - Vladimir Putin



Nice...
 
2014-03-02 07:12:29 AM  

super_grass: Gentoolive: Bloody William: 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.

Bring all of our soldiers home, protect our own borders and mind our own business?

That would be "isolationism", do you know who else is an isolationist? That's right, RAND PAUL.


Love the guy
 
2014-03-02 07:13:50 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.


??? Battleships? You are an idiot.
 
2014-03-02 07:18:10 AM  
All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.
 
2014-03-02 07:24:29 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.


You're under the assumption this is a "real" news site or something?
 
2014-03-02 07:26:36 AM  

Mike_1962: 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 ...


T'was a Teddy Roosevelt reference, sparky.
 
2014-03-02 07:32:18 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.


Waaaah! Someone is disagreeing with me in a debate! drew, ban him!!

/even if you are correct in a debate, such whining is pathetic
 
2014-03-02 07:39:43 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wake Up Sheeple: All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.

Waaaah! Someone is disagreeing with me in a debate! drew, ban him!!

/even if you are correct in a debate, such whining is pathetic


Actually, I'm just saying this is the last straw. Drew has actually come out against the trolls, and now I want him to start policing more. Otherwise he's a hypocrite. If he's not going to police it, then he should just say so, and let Fark be another Breitbart site, as this is fast becoming.

People are entitled to their opinions, but this is open trolling. I'm expressing my opinion, and voting with my wallet. I've lurked here for over a decade, and if it has to go back to that, I'm perfectly happy to do so. Interacting was an experiment. Unfortunately, talking about the problem openly is the only way left that I know how to get action on the problem since I've gone through all other channels.

The trolls, the alts, hell, this has happened even worse in TFD and there's no policing, no discipline.

Bottom line: Trolls make Drew money. More clicks, more posts = more ad views.
 
2014-03-02 07:39:46 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.


i290.photobucket.com

Maybe Reddit or Tumblr is more your speed.
 
2014-03-02 07:40:09 AM  

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


I have yet to see anyone who is suggesting Obama take military action but that doesn't seem to be stopping people from screaming "CHICKENHAWKS WANT WW3!"
 
2014-03-02 07:42:21 AM  

Tokin42: DamnYankees: This is just the weirdest talking point. Can anyone give a single actual military option they want Obama to employ?

I have yet to see anyone who is suggesting Obama take military action but that doesn't seem to be stopping people from screaming "CHICKENHAWKS WANT WW3!"


You sir, need to read the thread. Maybe scroll up just a few posts.
 
2014-03-02 07:43:54 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Debeo Summa Credo: Wake Up Sheeple: All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.

Waaaah! Someone is disagreeing with me in a debate! drew, ban him!!

/even if you are correct in a debate, such whining is pathetic

Actually, I'm just saying this is the last straw. Drew has actually come out against the trolls, and now I want him to start policing more. Otherwise he's a hypocrite. If he's not going to police it, then he should just say so, and let Fark be another Breitbart site, as this is fast becoming.

People are entitled to their opinions, but this is open trolling. I'm expressing my opinion, and voting with my wallet. I've lurked here for over a decade, and if it has to go back to that, I'm perfectly happy to do so. Interacting was an experiment. Unfortunately, talking about the problem openly is the only way left that I know how to get action on the problem since I've gone through all other channels.

The trolls, the alts, hell, this has happened even worse in TFD and there's no policing, no discipline.

Bottom line: Trolls make Drew money. More clicks, more posts = more ad views.


At first glance it doesn't sound like he is trolling to me. Not saying he's right, or you are, but you just differ in your views.

The definition of "troll" around here seems to have expanded to "anyone expressing a view to the right of me."
 
2014-03-02 07:48:56 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wake Up Sheeple: Debeo Summa Credo: Wake Up Sheeple: All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.

Waaaah! Someone is disagreeing with me in a debate! drew, ban him!!

/even if you are correct in a debate, such whining is pathetic

Actually, I'm just saying this is the last straw. Drew has actually come out against the trolls, and now I want him to start policing more. Otherwise he's a hypocrite. If he's not going to police it, then he should just say so, and let Fark be another Breitbart site, as this is fast becoming.

People are entitled to their opinions, but this is open trolling. I'm expressing my opinion, and voting with my wallet. I've lurked here for over a decade, and if it has to go back to that, I'm perfectly happy to do so. Interacting was an experiment. Unfortunately, talking about the problem openly is the only way left that I know how to get action on the problem since I've gone through all other channels.

The trolls, the alts, hell, this has happened even worse in TFD and there's no policing, no discipline.

Bottom line: Trolls make Drew money. More clicks, more posts = more ad views.

At first glance it doesn't sound like he is trolling to me. Not saying he's right, or you are, but you just differ in your views.

The definition of "troll" around here seems to have expanded to "anyone expressing a view to the right of me."


No... the Gish Gallop is troll-behavior. Constantly pretending a point wasn't debunked earlier in the thread, constantly moving the goalposts, bringing up off-topic points, the circular logic, telling people to go to Reddit, etc.. that's not trolling? Huh.. It sure looks like someone who keeps wants a negative response. Classic trolling.

Anyway, see you later.
 
2014-03-02 07:52:01 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Bottom line: Trolls make Drew money. More clicks, more posts = more ad views.


This guy gets it. Trolling is specifically named in the posting rules but the mods never, ever enforce that part.
 
2014-03-02 07:53:01 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Tokin42: DamnYankees: This is just the weirdest talking point. Can anyone give a single actual military option they want Obama to employ?

I have yet to see anyone who is suggesting Obama take military action but that doesn't seem to be stopping people from screaming "CHICKENHAWKS WANT WW3!"

You sir, need to read the thread. Maybe scroll up just a few posts.


Right.  I know when I'm looking for detailed political/military analysis and "talking points" I run to read anonymous blog commentators.
 
2014-03-02 08:39:58 AM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4  All Wars are Bankers wars
"War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler
That is all you need to know.
 
2014-03-02 08:46:16 AM  
We need to give Putin a way out of this mess without getting egg on his face. We can't allow him to escalate things in Crimea which is in direct violation of the '94 treaty. We don't want to see cold war era tensions either. Let's hope this resolves with no more bloodshed, because the alternative could be bad for the whole world.
 
2014-03-02 09:00:48 AM  
Can't think of a single damned reason we should get involved. If the Ukraine wants to call in it's NATO chip, let the french or Poles go over there and fark with Putin.
 
2014-03-02 09:07:50 AM  
Heh.  Can't believe the number of hardline nutbags in this thread who think Saint Reagan would have handled it any differently.  Well, let me correct myself.  He would have made a stirring speech full of bluff and bluster on TV, but the actual phone call behind closed doors would have gone exactly the same, maybe even softer.  It's been 60 years of this.  Other than that little moment with missiles in Cuba the US and Russia haven't so much as said an arch word directly to each other at the top.  Diplomat vs diplomat, sure.  Head to head in open session at the UN, occasionally a bit heated.  But head of state talking to head of state?  There's no need.  The fact that the President, no you don't get to dismiss him by just saying 'Obama', The Mother farking President called said everything that needed to be said.  The actual words exchanged didn't matter one single bit.
 
2014-03-02 09:15:15 AM  
Wow... you armchair generals are just farking hilarious. You really want to risk American lives and WWIII for the farking Ukraine? Just pretend they are brown people and STFU.
 
2014-03-02 09:32:03 AM  
WHITE HOUSE CALLS RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF WEST WING "UNACCEPTABLE"

President Draws Red Line in the Carpeting After Russian Soldiers Confiscate, Eat His Special Pro-biotic Yogurt

********

REUTERS, Mar. 2, 2014 -- With tensions escalating throughout the White House, the President today spent two hours on the phone with Russian president Vladimir Putin, seeking a peaceful resolution to Russia's occupation of The West Wing, now entering its 168th day.

(Story continues next page)
 
2014-03-02 09:33:21 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Can't think of a single damned reason we should get involved. If the Ukraine wants to call in it's NATO chip, let the french or Poles go over there and fark with Putin.


The '94 treaty was signed by Ukraine, Russia, Britain, and the US. There is no NATO chip Ukraine can call in.
 
2014-03-02 10:58:14 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-02 11:15:40 AM  
Remember when this meant something?

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-02 11:16:48 AM  

MarkEC: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Can't think of a single damned reason we should get involved. If the Ukraine wants to call in it's NATO chip, let the french or Poles go over there and fark with Putin.

The '94 treaty was signed by Ukraine, Russia, Britain, and the US. There is no NATO chip Ukraine can call in.


Oh well. If Pooty Poot wants to wipe his ass on a treaty, who are we to intervene?  You think we're gonna start a world war over the Ukraine? Not likely.
 
2014-03-02 12:31:54 PM  
"Obama could order a show of military support for US allies in eastern Europe through NATO, but wants to avoid a Cold War-style chess match with Moscow."

JFK is rolling in his grave
 
2014-03-02 12:54:30 PM  
Obama will let Putin do whatever he wants to do in the area.
Must be part of Obama being 'more flexible' once he was in his second term.

And for those of you trying to say Reagan wouldn't have done anything different, at least Reagan wouldn't have skipped a WH national security council meeting like Obama did.
Obama can't even be bothered to attend a meeting about the issue.
 
2014-03-02 01:09:06 PM  

zepher: Obama will let Putin do whatever he wants to do in the area.
Must be part of Obama being 'more flexible' once he was in his second term.


You guys had your chance to vote him out. You couldn't do it.
 
2014-03-02 01:29:39 PM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Debeo Summa Credo: Wake Up Sheeple: All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.

Waaaah! Someone is disagreeing with me in a debate! drew, ban him!!

/even if you are correct in a debate, such whining is pathetic

Actually, I'm just saying this is the last straw. Drew has actually come out against the trolls, and now I want him to start policing more. Otherwise he's a hypocrite. If he's not going to police it, then he should just say so, and let Fark be another Breitbart site, as this is fast becoming.

People are entitled to their opinions, but this is open trolling. I'm expressing my opinion, and voting with my wallet. I've lurked here for over a decade, and if it has to go back to that, I'm perfectly happy to do so. Interacting was an experiment. Unfortunately, talking about the problem openly is the only way left that I know how to get action on the problem since I've gone through all other channels.

The trolls, the alts, hell, this has happened even worse in TFD and there's no policing, no discipline.

Bottom line: Trolls make Drew money. More clicks, more posts = more ad views.


Actually, from a Farker who's been here for longer than you've been sexually active, it has gotten way more liberal than it used to be and the republican trolls have been cut in half if not decimated.

You are not being trolled so pull you big boy pants up and deal.
 
2014-03-02 01:38:04 PM  

zepher: Obama will let Putin do whatever he wants to do in the area.
Must be part of Obama being 'more flexible' once he was in his second term.

And for those of you trying to say Reagan wouldn't have done anything different, at least Reagan wouldn't have skipped a WH national security council meeting like Obama did.
Obama can't even be bothered to attend a meeting about the issue.



You're 12 right?
 
2014-03-02 02:08:34 PM  

Wake Up Sheeple: 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.


Russian military is a joke. Most of their tanks etc were left outside to rust. After their humiliation in their first invasion of Chechnya they held war games to test actual capability and declared to the world afterwards that any hostile action toward them would be met with nuclear retaliation because their conventional forces were useless in larger scale conflicts.

With what we've seen in the Olympics do you think that they magically upgraded their military? Last time I went to buy a field jacket at a military surplus store in Indiana they had sold them all to the Russian army which apparently couldn't source decent cold weather jackets in Russia for less than scouring our small aftermarket outlets for the twenty or so they individually stock and pay for international shipment.

They have one option if the Ukrainian military fights back and that is to go nuclear. The question is if we think Putin will follow through with that. Do the Ukrainians believe Russia would?

What makes me mad is that Russia is being rewarded for previous genocide. That several decades ago people were relocated and their children who grew up citizens of another country are being forced to join Russia in a last-ditch effort to keep Russia relevant.

Of course most of this is our fault. If we'd sent Russia a bunch of civics teachers and spent heavily on open communications and media infrastructure there after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were a couple of years where this could have been forestalled. But we were content to suck each others' dicks on self-congratulations for having won the Cold War. I saw this in high school. They were asking us for help in building Democratic institutions and we told them they were on their own. Now the world is reaping what we failed to sow because we couldn't be gracious in our "victory." They allowed us to rewire their controls for their nuclear weapons, for heavens sake. But we couldn't bring ourselves to help them in nonmilitary areas even when asked.

Instead we ended up with our own version of the Kremlin (meaning a unified internal federal law enforcement and investigation service and foreign spy service, something we used to be dead set against because it inevitably meant despotism) and a Russia dominated by the old order of autocrats.

So we are back to realpolitik with an adversary whose only feasible military response even in small engagements is nuclear war, which they know we will not risk.

The only way to win that game is not to play but we don't have a choice in that matter.

The military might of Russia rests largely in the one option we will not force them to use.
 
2014-03-02 02:37:44 PM  

way south: 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.


You believe that anything short of threatening all out war is "meaningless"?
See, this is why Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
2014-03-02 02:49:08 PM  

GDubDub: There is a treaty. It is LAW that we intervene. LAW.


No.  The treaty states:

"The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine ... to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. "

These are the specific responsibilities that the signatories have:

* Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
* Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
* Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
* Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
* Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
* Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.



So NO, it is not at all clear that we have any legal obligation to intervene militarily against Russia.
 
2014-03-02 02:56:56 PM  

BolloxReader: They were asking us for help in building Democratic institutions and we told them they were on their own. Now the world is reaping what we failed to sow because we couldn't be gracious in our "victory." They allowed us to rewire their controls for their nuclear weapons, for heavens sake. But we couldn't bring ourselves to help them in nonmilitary areas even when asked.


Why oh why couldn't we learn from the one time we got it right with the Marshall Plan?
The ability to gloat is worth absolutely nothing, especially compared to the difference between having stable and prosperous nation with which to trade goods, and angry, resentful, desperate ones who have a chip on their shoulder and nothing to trade but bombs.
 
2014-03-02 03:08:23 PM  

Gawdzila: BolloxReader: They were asking us for help in building Democratic institutions and we told them they were on their own. Now the world is reaping what we failed to sow because we couldn't be gracious in our "victory." They allowed us to rewire their controls for their nuclear weapons, for heavens sake. But we couldn't bring ourselves to help them in nonmilitary areas even when asked.

Why oh why couldn't we learn from the one time we got it right with the Marshall Plan?
The ability to gloat is worth absolutely nothing, especially compared to the difference between having stable and prosperous nation with which to trade goods, and angry, resentful, desperate ones who have a chip on their shoulder and nothing to trade but bombs.


Tscha. Yeah. You know what?

Um ... about that, too.
 
Ral
2014-03-02 03:23:57 PM  
There's no such thing as international law.
 
2014-03-02 03:34:42 PM  

jmr61: zepher


You're slobbering Barry's cock every night, right?
 
2014-03-02 08:45:38 PM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Debeo Summa Credo: Wake Up Sheeple: Debeo Summa Credo: Wake Up Sheeple: All right Drew, this is the crap we put up with. The trolls that you say are bad for business. Yet, nothing. It's nice that someone sponsored me, but I'll continue to block your ads and pay you nothing for your site until you start policing this more and keeping to your word.

Waaaah! Someone is disagreeing with me in a debate! drew, ban him!!

/even if you are correct in a debate, such whining is pathetic

Actually, I'm just saying this is the last straw. Drew has actually come out against the trolls, and now I want him to start policing more. Otherwise he's a hypocrite. If he's not going to police it, then he should just say so, and let Fark be another Breitbart site, as this is fast becoming.

People are entitled to their opinions, but this is open trolling. I'm expressing my opinion, and voting with my wallet. I've lurked here for over a decade, and if it has to go back to that, I'm perfectly happy to do so. Interacting was an experiment. Unfortunately, talking about the problem openly is the only way left that I know how to get action on the problem since I've gone through all other channels.

The trolls, the alts, hell, this has happened even worse in TFD and there's no policing, no discipline.

Bottom line: Trolls make Drew money. More clicks, more posts = more ad views.

At first glance it doesn't sound like he is trolling to me. Not saying he's right, or you are, but you just differ in your views.

The definition of "troll" around here seems to have expanded to "anyone expressing a view to the right of me."

No... the Gish Gallop is troll-behavior. Constantly pretending a point wasn't debunked earlier in the thread, constantly moving the goalposts, bringing up off-topic points, the circular logic, telling people to go to Reddit, etc.. that's not trolling? Huh.. It sure looks like someone who keeps wants a negative response. Classic trolling.

Anyway, see you later.


Crybaby.
 
2014-03-03 06:44:19 AM  

zepher: ouldn't have done anything different, at least Reagan wouldn't have skipped a WH national security council meeting like Obama did.
Obama can't even be bothered to attend a meeting about the is


Yeah Reagan would have gone, he just wouldn't have remembered it.
/staff and aides no witch meetings are important I doubt you do.
 
Displayed 144 of 144 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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