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.

(Slate)   President Obama's big mistake in the Ukraine situation? Even suggesting there would be "consequences" for Russia if they invade Ukraine, because there are exactly two things we can do about it: jack, and shiat   (slate.com ) divider line 276
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Ukraine, Russia, West Berlin, Nikita Khrushchev, Crimean, Russian Navy, Secretary of State John Kerry  
•       •       •

1302 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Mar 2014 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 12:59:12 PM  

NeoAnderthal: This reminds me of Bill Clinton constantly wagging his impotent finger at Saddam Hussein. we all saw what that got us. This is exactly why liberals have the deserved reputation for being pussies on the world stage.

Calls us pussies while wetting himself over Putin's unstopable power..... His manly and disturbingly sexual power.

Its a rerun from last night but fark it.

www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-03-03 01:00:36 PM  

danknerd: manbart: Why should the United States be obligated to intervene? If anything, the US should formerly exit NATO, what is the point of being a member anyway?

Why should I care if Russia invades Crimea?

Because Ukraine gave up their nukes for protection by the U.S. (and others), if the U.S. doesn't honor the treaty, the U.S. looks weak and not trustworthy. Plus, then all the treaties of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons go right out the window and every country will then want to protect themselves directly with Nukes instead of the international communities coming in.


interesting thanks for the info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
 
2014-03-03 01:00:38 PM  

RexTalionis: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: (1) gas immediately being shut off to Western Europe

Now that the US is one of the largest producers of fossil fuels and one of the largest gas producers, we're no longer buying up as much of the natural gas on the international markets, which leaves more free for European countries. Yes, it'll hurt, but they're not absolutely dependent on Gazprom.


The largest natural gas producer iirc, and it is an area we can grow in if we need to. Like, say, some stupid country on the other side of the world wants to cut their income by refusing to sell fossil fuels.  

Environmental damage notwithstanding, it would be an incredible boon for our country to boost supply at the same time Russia pulls back and boosts the price of natural gas in the process.
 
2014-03-03 01:00:42 PM  

colon_pow: dinch: colon_pow: obama could draw a red line in the sand, and then when pressed he could say that the red line was drawn a long time ago by nato.

and then do nothing.

Syria still has their chemical weapons?

yes.


And you think he's free to continue using them however he likes?

I see...
 
2014-03-03 01:00:45 PM  

Skleenar: mistrmind: He's more concerned on how he looks than on what the correct course of action should be.

Ah.  Political insight from the Limbaugh "read their minds" school of policy critique.

[www.troll.me image 303x232]


Ah, please.  Fill the room with your wisdom and intelligence.
 
2014-03-03 01:01:25 PM  
It's sick how the right seems to want a huge war just so they can make Obama look bad.
It's like the want Putin to nuke Kiev just so they can say thanks Obama.
 
2014-03-03 01:02:07 PM  

danknerd: Because Ukraine gave up their nukes for protection by the U.S. (and others), if the U.S. doesn't honor the treaty, the U.S.


It's not a treaty.

www.palmtalk.org


According to the memorandum, Russia, the US, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:

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.[6]
 
2014-03-03 01:02:20 PM  

BSABSVR: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: pup.socket: Actually, there is a lot Obama and the US can do about it that doesn't involve military action.

I'm astonished at the American media, to be honest.  They're so blinkered, at this point, they really don't know what they're talking about.  Military response seems to be the only thing possible, and it has to happen yesterday.

That has become literally the only part of foreign policy that is discussed in the US. Global influence is being boiled down to who we can bomb/invade or threaten to bomb/invade.


It's almost as if the biggest media purveyors in the world were owned by only a few giant corporations or rich dudes, and the result is a rather one-sided, simplistic, but very exciting and scary point of view.
 
2014-03-03 01:03:05 PM  
Right wingers demand that Obama takes an action immediately so they know sooner what opposite stance to take.
 
2014-03-03 01:03:47 PM  

danknerd: Because Ukraine gave up their nukes for protection by the U.S. (and others), if the U.S. doesn't honor the treaty, the U.S. looks weak and not trustworthy. Plus, then all the treaties of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons go right out the window and every country will then want to protect themselves directly with Nukes instead of the international communities coming in.


Honoring agreements  is important, so we may yet get sucked into this if shiat really hits the fan. However, this is why it is time to formerly end our commitments to NATO. These agreements made sense during the Cold War, but times have changed. There is no appetite for an armed conflict with Russia, noise from the wing-nuts aside. I don't think Russia has any interest in starting shooting either. Major world players do not want to rock the boat of the world economy, industrialized nations fighting one another is bad for business for all parties involved.
 
2014-03-03 01:03:50 PM  

mistrmind: Skleenar: mistrmind: He's more concerned on how he looks than on what the correct course of action should be.

Ah.  Political insight from the Limbaugh "read their minds" school of policy critique.

[www.troll.me image 303x232]

Ah, please.  Fill the room with your wisdom and intelligence.


I would, but you're more concerned with looking good to other Fark commenters to really make for a real conversation.

;-)
 
2014-03-03 01:04:04 PM  

BSABSVR: mistrmind: qorkfiend: mistrmind: pup.socket: Actually, there is a lot Obama and the US can do about it that doesn't involve military action.


Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

You believe the only options are "Invade now" or "do nothing"?

I believe we have many options to weigh.   However, we're talking Obama here, who is pretty much ineffective and bogged down as a President.   He's more concerned on how he looks than on what the correct course of action should be.

And you would do what exactly?


Nothing.  How does this affect the United States?
Is it worth sacrificing American troops?   Is it strategically important?   Really we should just focus on our country and our national interests.
 
2014-03-03 01:04:14 PM  
I guess the reasonable thing to do would be to wait and see how the elections turn out then let diplomacy have a go at resolving this issue.

I hope the protesters play the cat and mouse game with Putin (raise hell then retreat until forces clear then raise hell), hit him in the pocket book. no sense in throwing rocks at armed soldiers.

I believe President Obama should press for economic sanctions, for only one reason, we need to let Putin know that his totalitarian insistence that sovereign European countries participate in keeping Russia afloat will not stand.
 
2014-03-03 01:04:48 PM  

johnnyrocket: There's always Global Thermonuclear War.

*shutter*


It would be nice if this could be settled over a nice game of chess.

I'm sure Kasparov could be convinced to play Putin for Ukraine somehow. If a Russian has to rule Crimea, it might as well be Garry Kimovich.
 
2014-03-03 01:05:28 PM  

danknerd: manbart: Why should the United States be obligated to intervene? If anything, the US should formerly exit NATO, what is the point of being a member anyway?

Why should I care if Russia invades Crimea?

Because Ukraine gave up their nukes for protection by the U.S. (and others), if the U.S. doesn't honor the treaty, the U.S. looks weak and not trustworthy. Plus, then all the treaties of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons go right out the window and every country will then want to protect themselves directly with Nukes instead of the international communities coming in.


These are the conditions of the deal.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

The agreement was for the U.S GB and Russia to take security council actions to protect them if they were ever attacked. Security council actions could be anything from armed force to sanctions to a strongly worded letter showing disapproval. Oh yeah, guess who has a vote on the security council actions?
 
2014-03-03 01:05:32 PM  

mistrmind: BSABSVR: mistrmind: qorkfiend: mistrmind: pup.socket: Actually, there is a lot Obama and the US can do about it that doesn't involve military action.


Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

You believe the only options are "Invade now" or "do nothing"?

I believe we have many options to weigh.   However, we're talking Obama here, who is pretty much ineffective and bogged down as a President.   He's more concerned on how he looks than on what the correct course of action should be.

And you would do what exactly?

Nothing.  How does this affect the United States?
Is it worth sacrificing American troops?   Is it strategically important?   Really we should just focus on our country and our national interests.


Do you think fewer nuclear weapons in the world is a national interest?
 
2014-03-03 01:05:35 PM  

Skleenar: mistrmind: Skleenar: mistrmind: He's more concerned on how he looks than on what the correct course of action should be.

Ah.  Political insight from the Limbaugh "read their minds" school of policy critique.

[www.troll.me image 303x232]

Ah, please.  Fill the room with your wisdom and intelligence.

I would, but you're more concerned with looking good to other Fark commenters to really make for a real conversation.

;-)


So you have nothing intelligent to add.   Okay troll.
 
2014-03-03 01:07:25 PM  

DamnYankees: Back to the actual point at hand, I think TFA is being a little too glib about what kind of consequences the West can impose. The economic damage to Russia can be substantial if the West decides to impose actual trade restrictions or sanctions. Look at the Russian stock market today - they are already being hurt quite badly.


Yeah but trade restrictions and diplomatic pressure don't make for good movies, so they're pointless. What we really need here is a Reverse Red Dawn (the old one, not the crappy new one), except we win.
 
2014-03-03 01:07:40 PM  

vygramul: mistrmind: BSABSVR: mistrmind: qorkfiend: mistrmind: pup.socket: Actually, there is a lot Obama and the US can do about it that doesn't involve military action.


Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

You believe the only options are "Invade now" or "do nothing"?

I believe we have many options to weigh.   However, we're talking Obama here, who is pretty much ineffective and bogged down as a President.   He's more concerned on how he looks than on what the correct course of action should be.

And you would do what exactly?

Nothing.  How does this affect the United States?
Is it worth sacrificing American troops?   Is it strategically important?   Really we should just focus on our country and our national interests.

Do you think fewer nuclear weapons in the world is a national interest?


I think focus on boosting our economy and becoming more fiscally responsible is in our interest.  If the Ukraine wishes to be independent of Russia, they'll need to work for it.
 
2014-03-03 01:07:43 PM  

mistrmind: Is it strategically important?


(Snicker.)
 
2014-03-03 01:07:45 PM  

Skleenar: danknerd: Because Ukraine gave up their nukes for protection by the U.S. (and others), if the U.S. doesn't honor the treaty, the U.S.

It's not a treaty.

[www.palmtalk.org image 602x375]


According to the memorandum, Russia, the US, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:

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.[6]


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assura nc es
 
2014-03-03 01:08:30 PM  

Ring of Fire: It's sick how the right seems to want a huge war just so they can make Obama look bad.
It's like the want Putin to nuke Kiev just so they can say thanks Obama.


                  images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-03 01:09:44 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Right wingers demand that Obama takes an action immediately so they know sooner what opposite stance to take.


Pretty much this. Also, the US has no business in the Ukraine, much less Crimea. I literally do not care of Russia takes over the area. It's not part of NATO, and the US has no interests to protect. This is Europe's turf; if they want to get involved, we should back them, but there's no reason to be taking lead here.

Sucks to be Ukrainian.
 
2014-03-03 01:10:33 PM  

mistrmind: So you have nothing intelligent to add. Okay troll.


No, U.
 
2014-03-03 01:11:22 PM  
Remember when Bush murdered Saddam with the blunt force of his macho American donkey phallus?  Pepperidge Farm remembers.  Stupid Obama will just appease Putin.  Palin would drowned him with her milky teats.
 
2014-03-03 01:13:20 PM  

mistrmind: I think focus on boosting our economy and becoming more fiscally responsible is in our interest.  If the Ukraine wishes to be independent of Russia, they'll need to work for it.


They did work for it and got it in the '90s. And then they also did us a solid by giving up their nukes like we asked them. We really kind of owe them some consideration.
 
2014-03-03 01:13:32 PM  
Oh, so now he wants to pretend like he doesn't have a time machine.
 
2014-03-03 01:13:36 PM  

Skleenar: danknerd: Because Ukraine gave up their nukes for protection by the U.S. (and others), if the U.S. doesn't honor the treaty, the U.S.

It's not a treaty.

[www.palmtalk.org image 602x375]


According to the memorandum, Russia, the US, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:

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.[6]


My bad, the NPT is serious and it is what stopped all most all nations from developing their own nuclear arsenals... so if a nation like Ukraine gives up their nukes and then is invaded by a nation with nuclear capabilities... which it could have used as a threat to stop Russia and no other nation comes to their defense... why would any other nation not then want their own nukes, it is not a path the world should want to go down.
 
2014-03-03 01:14:03 PM  
Aw shiat, mistrmind is here, y'all!  Don't you dare call him any mean names or he will get mad about your ad hominem attacks, insult your intelligence, and call you a troll.
 
2014-03-03 01:15:02 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Right wingers demand that Obama takes an action immediately so they know sooner what opposite stance to take.


Its going to super hilarious watching the meathead derps vote to defund the military to spite 0bamalamadingadingdangmylangalonglinlong.
 
2014-03-03 01:15:18 PM  

Tomahawk513: NeverDrunk23: Right wingers demand that Obama takes an action immediately so they know sooner what opposite stance to take.

Pretty much this. Also, the US has no business in the Ukraine, much less Crimea. I literally do not care of Russia takes over the area. It's not part of NATO, and the US has no interests to protect. This is Europe's turf; if they want to get involved, we should back them, but there's no reason to be taking lead here.

Sucks to be Ukrainian.


A little chunk of this country with a high Russ population here a little there then next the tanks are rolling down mainstreet Warswa.... 39 all over again.
 
2014-03-03 01:15:47 PM  

QU!RK1019: Remember when Bush murdered Saddam with the blunt force of his macho American donkey phallus?  Pepperidge Farm remembers.  Stupid Obama will just appease Putin.  Palin would drowned him with her milky teats.


it would be like that scene in Conan the Barbarian (the old one, not the crappy new one) when Conan (Putin) gets seduced by the witch (Palin) who eventually turns into a ball of blue flame & exits the scene when she realizes that Conan has bested her both physically and sexually.

what i'm saying is that Palin is a worthless lash batter.
 
2014-03-03 01:18:21 PM  

Isitoveryet: it would be like that scene in Conan the Barbarian (the old one, not the crappy new one) when Conan (Putin) gets seduced by the witch (Palin) who eventually turns into a ball of blue flame & exits the scene when she realizes that Conan has bested her both physically and sexually.

what i'm saying is that Palin is a worthless lash batter.


No lash batter can withstand the Putin baby batter.
 
2014-03-03 01:18:31 PM  

QU!RK1019: Aw shiat, mistrmind is here, y'all!  Don't you dare call him any mean names or he will get mad about your ad hominem attacks, insult your intelligence, and call you a troll.


I don't know.  It scared me back under my bridge.  Will you all quit tramping up there? I'm trying to get a shame-wank on.  It's distracting.
 
2014-03-03 01:21:12 PM  
1. Economic sanctions
2. Cyber war
It may not stop them but if the cost is high enough the Russians may think twice about invading someone else.
 
2014-03-03 01:21:47 PM  

QU!RK1019: Isitoveryet:

No lash batter can withstand the Putin baby batter.


snot shot out the nose, i've been sick.
 
2014-03-03 01:23:03 PM  

mistrmind: qorkfiend: mistrmind: pup.socket: Actually, there is a lot Obama and the US can do about it that doesn't involve military action.


Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

You believe the only options are "Invade now" or "do nothing"?

I believe we have many options to weigh.   However, we're talking Obama here, who is pretty much ineffective and bogged down as a President.   He's more concerned on how he looks than on what the correct course of action should be.


And what would that be?

Sanctions? Trade deal breaking? Ooooo that'll teach them!
 
2014-03-03 01:23:27 PM  

vygramul: mistrmind: I think focus on boosting our economy and becoming more fiscally responsible is in our interest.  If the Ukraine wishes to be independent of Russia, they'll need to work for it.

They did work for it and got it in the '90s. And then they also did us a solid by giving up their nukes like we asked them. We really kind of owe them some consideration.


Okay.  Perhaps funding and gun running to the national over there under CIA supervision.   Otherwise they need to row their own boat here.
 
2014-03-03 01:24:28 PM  

Saiga410: Tomahawk513: NeverDrunk23: Right wingers demand that Obama takes an action immediately so they know sooner what opposite stance to take.

Pretty much this. Also, the US has no business in the Ukraine, much less Crimea. I literally do not care of Russia takes over the area. It's not part of NATO, and the US has no interests to protect. This is Europe's turf; if they want to get involved, we should back them, but there's no reason to be taking lead here.

Sucks to be Ukrainian.

A little chunk of this country with a high Russ population here a little there then next the tanks are rolling down mainstreet Warswa.... 39 all over again.


...Which is in Europe, making it (still) Europe's problem.  Who's the primary beneficiary in a Western-learning Ukraine?  Europe.
 
2014-03-03 01:25:40 PM  

DamnYankees: Back to the actual point at hand, I think TFA is being a little too glib about what kind of consequences the West can impose. The economic damage to Russia can be substantial if the West decides to impose actual trade restrictions or sanctions. Look at the Russian stock market today - they are already being hurt quite badly.


The traders there are frantic because they essentially had no warning that Putin was going to do this, otherwise they would have unwound their positions weeks ago.
 
2014-03-03 01:26:15 PM  

NeoAnderthal: This reminds me of Bill Clinton constantly wagging his impotent finger at Saddam Hussein. we all saw what that got us. This is exactly why liberals have the deserved reputation for being pussies on the world stage.


You guys just lie in wait for these threads, don't you?
 
2014-03-03 01:26:17 PM  

Saiga410: A little chunk of this country with a high Russ population here a little there then next the tanks are rolling down mainstreet Warswa.... 39 all over again.


Good point. I propose that we drop Saiga410 off behind enemy lines to wage a single man Rambo-esque campaign against the commies.
 
2014-03-03 01:26:54 PM  
My facebook has been lighting up with some more conservative friends shouting "ROMNEY WAS RIGHT" and linking that debate video where Obama laughs off Romney's idea that Russia is that greatest enemy ever of all time!!! This still hardly affects the US, especially in terms of actively threatening us, which makes this attempted reclaiming of a failed GOP candidate even more hilarious
 
2014-03-03 01:28:13 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: mistrmind: qorkfiend: mistrmind: pup.socket: Actually, there is a lot Obama and the US can do about it that doesn't involve military action.


Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

You believe the only options are "Invade now" or "do nothing"?

I believe we have many options to weigh.   However, we're talking Obama here, who is pretty much ineffective and bogged down as a President.   He's more concerned on how he looks than on what the correct course of action should be.

And what would that be?

Sanctions? Trade deal breaking? Ooooo that'll teach them!


I don't know.  You need to ask Gorkfiend that question.
 
2014-03-03 01:29:14 PM  
Also, as someone whose salary is paid in rubles, I am not enjoying this.
 
2014-03-03 01:29:24 PM  

NeoAnderthal: This reminds me of Bill Clinton constantly wagging his impotent finger at Saddam Hussein. we all saw what that got us. This is exactly why liberals have the deserved reputation for being pussies on the world stage.


Potatoed in the Boobies.
 
2014-03-03 01:30:01 PM  
 
2014-03-03 01:30:45 PM  

jchuffyman: Also, as someone whose salary is paid in rubles, I am not enjoying this.


they should pay you in gum! or vodka or gum flavored vodka.
 
2014-03-03 01:31:27 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Ring of Fire: It's sick how the right seems to want a huge war just so they can make Obama look bad.
It's like the want Putin to nuke Kiev just so they can say thanks Obama.

                  [images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 200x267]


Oh really please explain. In detail...
 
2014-03-03 01:32:42 PM  

Isitoveryet: jchuffyman: Also, as someone whose salary is paid in rubles, I am not enjoying this.

they should pay you in gum! or vodka or gum flavored vodka.


Sadly, the price of vodka is going up as well, as the government passed new alcohol taxes. (~6 bucks for half a liter! The horror!)
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

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