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.

(Sky.com)   China and Russia are "in agreement" about Ukraine. In other news. It might be time to clear out grandpa's old fallout bunker   (news.sky.com) divider line 321
    More: Followup, Ukraine, Russia, ferry slip, Foreign Secretary William Hague, Russian flag, territorial integrity, Donetsk, Viktor Yanukovych  
•       •       •

7309 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 6:25 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 08:30:03 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Serious Post on Serious Thread: SunsetLament: I'll admit, liberals are the most fun right at the moment when they realize the obvious results of their ideology flourishing is that everything goes to shiat.  It's a shame that everything has to actually go to shiat for them to realize it.  It's also a shame that they have to pretend they were not responsible in any way when it happens, too.

Thanks liberals - you're both hilarious and farking terrible.

K. As a self admitted Libby lib mcLibtardy Libby. WTF R U TALKING ABOUT?????

Sure, war bad. Got that. But what does the US motherfarking A have to do with this? Giving or receiving? Why the fark do I care more or less about this than th multitudes of crap going on all over the world? Except we (the US motherfarking A) seems to have less to do with this than most other probs we stick our unneeded nose into?????

Really!
WHY DO I CARE! PLEASE. TELL ME.

Poland. Estonia. Lithuania. Latvia. Sudetenland.


Sing along
 
2014-03-03 08:32:16 PM

HairyNevus: So many people ignorantly armchair politicking, while simultaneously ignorantly mocking politicians. It's....it's beautiful.
[www.comicsreporter.com image 335x327]


Yeah, it's amusing to see all of the 5 star generals of the internet itching to start world war 3 from their living rooms.
 
2014-03-03 08:32:20 PM

Boojum2k: President Obama is trying, at least. He's a lot stronger on domestic and social issues, particularly now, but this is not his area of expertise.


I agree that the focus is domestic, just like Bush Sr was a master at diplomacy but had a tin ear for domestic concerns.

I'm just raging at GOP officials who go on air or print to blame the invasion on Obama for being weak, as if Putin's decisions (which most people did not expect) were not his own. The example is David Kramer, who was in charge of the Russia desk at the State Dept during GW Bush's terms, wrote a piece in the WashPost on Sunday and today was at the Atlantic Council in DC, grandstanding in front of the Moldovan PM about "US is weak! NATO must fight or the world will end!" (Of course, he has no answer to why Russia invaded Georgia in 2008.)

Yes, this is a test, but sniping in advance by McCain, Graham, Kramer, et al doesn't help when the US has to look strong. In our military contingency planning (much of what I do), we honestly don't care most times why the situation got bad, we just have to deal with it. So yes, this is a test for Obama, but playing politics really doesn't help.

And I'm especially sensitive about Crimea, since I was to help lead a NATO training mission there in May for the same officers now under threat by Russians. Of course that mission is now scrubbed, and we've been scrambling even to figure out if everyone is still on the grid (they're not). So when Sen Graham goes on TV to blame the invasion on Obama... I get really, really upset.

/rant off
 
2014-03-03 08:33:30 PM

vernonFL: Six hundred rode into the valley of death.
Cannons to the left of them
Cannons to the right
Into the valley of death rode the six hundred


Jeffrey?
 
2014-03-03 08:34:05 PM

spawn73: Submittard doing what submittard does best.

Is Russia or China going to nuke you? No they're not.


Fark has exactly two methods of attempting to comprehend international relations.  Option 1 is to shiat its pants in fear of nuclear war every time any country anywhere (outside of Africa) does anything.  Option 2 is to demand strong military action that had better be both free and devoid of any casualties.  Anything else is met with long streamers of confused drool and/or rage.
 
2014-03-03 08:34:40 PM
T-Servo:

Yes, this is a test, but sniping in advance by McCain, Graham, Kramer, et al doesn't help when the US has to look strong. In our military contingency planning (much of what I do), we honestly don't care most times why the situation got bad, we just have to deal with it. So yes, this is a test for Obama, but playing politics really doesn't help.

It's odd how when they do this it's them being Real Americans but daring to question why we were going to war with Iraq was considered treason.
 
2014-03-03 08:34:40 PM

SunsetLament: He can do it because he (and everyone else in the world) knows nobody will lift a finger to stop him.


What precicely should we do?

And would you be willing to see your taxes go up to pay for it? Would you be willing to return to the days of the draft? Of rationing? Of turning the U.S. economy into a war economy and changing every aspect of your life to support a war?

How much are you, personally, willing to sacrifice? After Pearl Harbor, Americans were willing to sacrifice just about everything to see things set right. After 9/11 Americans were willing to go shopping, and if things happened to be set right, that was fine, as long as we didn't have to actually pay for it or put up with any meaningful sacrifices. Oh, and if we could have lower taxes while you're out spending trillions because, really, it's unfair to make us pay for those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quite frankly, one of Bush's biggest mistakes after 9/11 was telling Americans that they didn't have to sacrifice. The Iraq invasion was sold on the idea that the war would be cheap, fast, and most importantly, easy. The idea that it would be a decade long slog, difficult, and expensive was dismissed as unpatriotic. All we heard was how easy it was going to be, that no sacrifice would be needed.

When it comes to a big crisis like this, these days America only cares if it doesn't really cost us all that much. So again, I ask, how much are you willing to sacrifice before you decide that it's not that big a deal?
 
2014-03-03 08:40:17 PM

vernonFL: Six hundred rode into the valley of death.
Cannons to the left of them
Cannons to the right
Into the valley of death rode the six hundred


Goddammit. Get it right you farking 'tard.

Half a league half a league, 
Half a league onward. 
All in the valley of Death 
Rode the six hundred. 
"Forward, the Light Brigade. 
Charge for the guns," he said.
Into the valley of Death 
Rode the six hundred. 

"Forward, the Light Brigade."
Was there a man dismayed? 
Not though the soldier knew 
Some one had blundered. 
Theirs not to make reply, 
Theirs not to reason why, 
Theirs but to do and die. 
Into the valley of Death 
Rode the six hundred. 

Cannon to right of them, 
Cannon to left of them, 
Cannon in front of them 
Volleyed and thundered.  
Stormed at with shot and shell, 
Boldly they rode and well, 
Into the jaws of Death, 
Into the mouth of Hell 
Rode the six hundred. 

Flashed all their sabers bare, 
Flashed as they turned in air 
Sabring the gunners there, 
Charging an army while 
All the world wondered.
Plunged in the battery smoke 
Right through the line they broke 
Cossack and Russian 
Reeled from the saber stroke,
Shattered and sundered. 
Then they rode back,
but not 
Not the six hundred. 

Cannon to right of them, 
Cannon to left of them, 
Cannon behind them 
Volleyed and thundered.
Stormed at with shot and shell, 
While horse and hero fell, 
They that had fought so well 
Came through the jaws of death, 
Back from the mouth of hell, 
All that was left of them, 
Left of six hundred. 

When can their glory fade? 
Oh the wild charge they made.
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade, 
Noble six hundred.


Even if you were so uncultured as to NOT have learned that in HS, you could have googled it and not screwed up your quote.
 
2014-03-03 08:41:12 PM

soporific: What precicely should we do?


Oh, there's nothing we can do that The One would let us do. He's in power, not the neocon warmongers.

What we should have done? Supported the Iranian Green Revolution. Failing that, we should have refused to support the Muslim Brotherhood's Arab Spring.

Since we already did both those things, it's a bit too late to worry any more. We're already off the cliff, and the only thing left is for us neocons to say "I told you so" until we hit rock bottom.

/but keep on blaming the Republicans
//that's the only thing you can do
///even though it will make picking up the pieces more difficult, what with all your accusing the people who know which pieces really matter of causing the crash all along
 
2014-03-03 08:42:38 PM

soporific: SunsetLament: He can do it because he (and everyone else in the world) knows nobody will lift a finger to stop him.

What precicely should we do?

And would you be willing to see your taxes go up to pay for it? Would you be willing to return to the days of the draft? Of rationing? Of turning the U.S. economy into a war economy and changing every aspect of your life to support a war?

How much are you, personally, willing to sacrifice? After Pearl Harbor, Americans were willing to sacrifice just about everything to see things set right. After 9/11 Americans were willing to go shopping, and if things happened to be set right, that was fine, as long as we didn't have to actually pay for it or put up with any meaningful sacrifices. Oh, and if we could have lower taxes while you're out spending trillions because, really, it's unfair to make us pay for those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quite frankly, one of Bush's biggest mistakes after 9/11 was telling Americans that they didn't have to sacrifice. The Iraq invasion was sold on the idea that the war would be cheap, fast, and most importantly, easy. The idea that it would be a decade long slog, difficult, and expensive was dismissed as unpatriotic. All we heard was how easy it was going to be, that no sacrifice would be needed.

When it comes to a big crisis like this, these days America only cares if it doesn't really cost us all that much. So again, I ask, how much are you willing to sacrifice before you decide that it's not that big a deal?


The terms of winning aren't reasonable any longer. There is no real point to conventional warfare anymore outside acting as world police or to achieve tactical objectives. You want to win the game? Sit back and watch everyone else blow themselves up and watch their economy tank. Walk behind the ramshackle nations and revitalize them. It is a war of attrition and a marathon, not a sprint - long gone are those days.
 
2014-03-03 08:45:59 PM

soporific: SunsetLament: He can do it because he (and everyone else in the world) knows nobody will lift a finger to stop him.

What precicely should we do?

And would you be willing to see your taxes go up to pay for it? Would you be willing to return to the days of the draft? Of rationing? Of turning the U.S. economy into a war economy and changing every aspect of your life to support a war?

How much are you, personally, willing to sacrifice? After Pearl Harbor, Americans were willing to sacrifice just about everything to see things set right. After 9/11 Americans were willing to go shopping, and if things happened to be set right, that was fine, as long as we didn't have to actually pay for it or put up with any meaningful sacrifices. Oh, and if we could have lower taxes while you're out spending trillions because, really, it's unfair to make us pay for those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quite frankly, one of Bush's biggest mistakes after 9/11 was telling Americans that they didn't have to sacrifice. The Iraq invasion was sold on the idea that the war would be cheap, fast, and most importantly, easy. The idea that it would be a decade long slog, difficult, and expensive was dismissed as unpatriotic. All we heard was how easy it was going to be, that no sacrifice would be needed.

When it comes to a big crisis like this, these days America only cares if it doesn't really cost us all that much. So again, I ask, how much are you willing to sacrifice before you decide that it's not that big a deal?


Oh, what a whiny bunch of crap.

This is what I would do as POTUS. Total Russian energy embargo! Dragging every ally, especially and importantly must include 100% of the Euros! Even if it means higher gasoline prices in the US, help the Euros with their natural gas needs (summers coming anyway...). Full military support for NATO border allies, especially the Polish. And squeeze the Russians on the banking front. Economic sanctions are a real weapon that could be used on the Russians.

//And if worse comes to worse, full support for the Ukrainian partisans.
 
2014-03-03 08:49:20 PM

soporific: So again, I ask, how much are you willing to sacrifice before you decide that it's not that big a deal?


Don't act like these guys give a shiat about anything like that. They just want to posture about how Obama and liberals are weak, and how true conservatism will save the day.

Funny how after Iraq turned out the way it did, they all disappeared. I thought they might have learned something. Turns out they were just pretending it never happened.
 
2014-03-03 08:50:13 PM
Oh look, another thread of conservatives screaming "THIS IS ALL ABOUT US! OBAMA SUCKS!" while... not really paying any attention to the situation or the parties involved beyond seeing what Obama is doing and making sure they want the opposite of it.

Has Ukraine asked us for help? Has NATO asked us for support? Has anyone in Europe said, "The United States should really come in and solve things?" It's not in our borders, it's not in our backyard, and our allies aren't telling us to come in and do anything. What the fark do you want us to do, you hawkish retards?
 
2014-03-03 08:51:08 PM

SunsetLament: Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: I think Obama should fart some rainbows and fix everything.  Weren't we all told the entire world loved him and that they'd be falling all over themselves to follow his lead once he took office?

Yes we can!

So what should we have done instead?

Not signal to the world that the United States isn't going to lift a finger to defend any of our allies because it's too important to follow the lead of the idiot American hippies that helped put him in office.

Once again, offering no solution. Typical conservative. ;)

I ask again, what should have been the solution.

Oh I have a solution: Don't posture to the world that your ideology's foundation is "being a gigantic pussy because you might break a nail if you're forced to do what's right."


2/10. To much jackboot.
 
2014-03-03 08:52:32 PM

the money is in the banana stand: soporific: SunsetLament: He can do it because he (and everyone else in the world) knows nobody will lift a finger to stop him.

What precicely should we do?

And would you be willing to see your taxes go up to pay for it? Would you be willing to return to the days of the draft? Of rationing? Of turning the U.S. economy into a war economy and changing every aspect of your life to support a war?

How much are you, personally, willing to sacrifice? After Pearl Harbor, Americans were willing to sacrifice just about everything to see things set right. After 9/11 Americans were willing to go shopping, and if things happened to be set right, that was fine, as long as we didn't have to actually pay for it or put up with any meaningful sacrifices. Oh, and if we could have lower taxes while you're out spending trillions because, really, it's unfair to make us pay for those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quite frankly, one of Bush's biggest mistakes after 9/11 was telling Americans that they didn't have to sacrifice. The Iraq invasion was sold on the idea that the war would be cheap, fast, and most importantly, easy. The idea that it would be a decade long slog, difficult, and expensive was dismissed as unpatriotic. All we heard was how easy it was going to be, that no sacrifice would be needed.

When it comes to a big crisis like this, these days America only cares if it doesn't really cost us all that much. So again, I ask, how much are you willing to sacrifice before you decide that it's not that big a deal?

The terms of winning aren't reasonable any longer. There is no real point to conventional warfare anymore outside acting as world police or to achieve tactical objectives. You want to win the game? Sit back and watch everyone else blow themselves up and watch their economy tank. Walk behind the ramshackle nations and revitalize them. It is a war of attrition and a marathon, not a sprint - long gone are those days.


C'mon, those days never existed. We beat the Soviets with the long game, the Chinese are currently beating us with their long game. But, we can defeat Putin with a hard, short game. Play energy hardball and he will lose.
 
2014-03-03 08:53:46 PM

Bloody William: Oh look, another thread of conservatives screaming "THIS IS ALL ABOUT US! OBAMA SUCKS!" while... not really paying any attention to the situation or the parties involved beyond seeing what Obama is doing and making sure they want the opposite of it.

Has Ukraine asked us for help? Has NATO asked us for support? Has anyone in Europe said, "The United States should really come in and solve things?" It's not in our borders, it's not in our backyard, and our allies aren't telling us to come in and do anything. What the fark do you want us to do, you hawkish retards?


Shut up, play ball, and help push Putin over a cliff?
 
2014-03-03 08:55:09 PM

LordJiro: I don't see why Republicans are so upset about Putin, either. I mean, he's a business-friendly, gay-hatin', liberal hatin' thug...Why SHOULDN'T they like him?


Check out Rudy Guilliani.  Not only is he insulting Obama, he's praising Putin's leadership style, and doing it with a smile on his face.
 
2014-03-03 08:55:14 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Oh, what a whiny bunch of crap.

This is what I would do as POTUS. Total Russian energy embargo! Dragging every ally, especially and importantly must include 100% of the Euros! Even if it means higher gasoline prices in the US, help the Euros with their natural gas needs (summers coming anyway...). Full military support for NATO border allies, especially the Polish. And squeeze the Russians on the banking front. Economic sanctions are a real weapon that could be used on the Russians.

//And if worse comes to worse, full support for the Ukrainian partisans.


At what cost? I'm not saying I'm against full military intervention when needed, but are you willing to see your taxes go up to pay for it? You seem fine with higher gas prices, but will everyone? Will the same people complaining that Obama isn't a huge warmonger complain even more when his actions impact their pocketbooks? Because if you are willing to personally sacrifice and experience more pain at the pump and in your paycheck, then I think you and I can agree on extreme sanctions.

After all, I'm a believer that if we go to war, and have a good reason for it, then we should pay for it immediately, and that means higher taxes on everyone, especially the rich. Stop putting wars on credit cards, pay for them up front.
 
2014-03-03 08:58:39 PM

the money is in the banana stand: The terms of winning aren't reasonable any longer. There is no real point to conventional warfare anymore outside acting as world police or to achieve tactical objectives. You want to win the game? Sit back and watch everyone else blow themselves up and watch their economy tank. Walk behind the ramshackle nations and revitalize them. It is a war of attrition and a marathon, not a sprint - long gone are those days.


I agree, which is why smart diplomacy is still the better solution.

My response was mainly for people who criticize Obama for not being a crazy warmonger, because they would be the first to complain about their own discomfort if Obama did it right and made all Americans pay for the war effort.
 
2014-03-03 09:00:20 PM

SunsetLament: Greywar: 1. If china really is onboard, then I suggest we lease a couple islands from Japan for a US military base

We already do - we've had a couple of military installations there since WW2.

2. We immediately declare the no nuke provisions of Ukraine void as no one is honoring them, and sell them a dozen surplus nuclear missiles and launching systems....for $1 each.  Our way of saying "sorry that agreement about removing your nuclear weapons to protect your borders isnt working out"

You can't give nukes to a country that's about to be invaded by the Russians.  But we can actually stop dicking around and fill Poland and the Czech Republic full of missile defense systems ... and park a fleet in the Black Sea.


Let me be more specific.  We lease the senkaku islands.  all 5 of them.

And yes you CAN give nukes to a country that had 1,900+ of them, and gave them up in exchange for a agreement saying its borders wouldn't be violated.    And...look.  one of the signatories of that agreement is invading.
 
2014-03-03 09:00:56 PM
Ow! That was my feelings!:

Shut up, play ball, and help push Putin over a cliff?

We could just strap skis on him and send him down the courses at Sochi.
 
2014-03-03 09:01:03 PM

soporific: Ow! That was my feelings!: Oh, what a whiny bunch of crap.

This is what I would do as POTUS. Total Russian energy embargo! Dragging every ally, especially and importantly must include 100% of the Euros! Even if it means higher gasoline prices in the US, help the Euros with their natural gas needs (summers coming anyway...). Full military support for NATO border allies, especially the Polish. And squeeze the Russians on the banking front. Economic sanctions are a real weapon that could be used on the Russians.

//And if worse comes to worse, full support for the Ukrainian partisans.

At what cost? I'm not saying I'm against full military intervention when needed, but are you willing to see your taxes go up to pay for it? You seem fine with higher gas prices, but will everyone? Will the same people complaining that Obama isn't a huge warmonger complain even more when his actions impact their pocketbooks? Because if you are willing to personally sacrifice and experience more pain at the pump and in your paycheck, then I think you and I can agree on extreme sanctions.

After all, I'm a believer that if we go to war, and have a good reason for it, then we should pay for it immediately, and that means higher taxes on everyone, especially the rich. Stop putting wars on credit cards, pay for them up front.


I made no reference to going to war. We don't need too. We can economically neuter Putin. Myself paying an extra 30 cents at the pump could happen because of a hurricane....or a shortage of Russian supply. The economic effects would be minimal in the US, they really would be. Europe....well....
 
2014-03-03 09:01:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Bloody William: Oh look, another thread of conservatives screaming "THIS IS ALL ABOUT US! OBAMA SUCKS!" while... not really paying any attention to the situation or the parties involved beyond seeing what Obama is doing and making sure they want the opposite of it.

Has Ukraine asked us for help? Has NATO asked us for support? Has anyone in Europe said, "The United States should really come in and solve things?" It's not in our borders, it's not in our backyard, and our allies aren't telling us to come in and do anything. What the fark do you want us to do, you hawkish retards?

Shut up, play ball, and help push Putin over a cliff?


Okay. What then? What would be the direct ramifications for us as a result of such a power play? What state would Russia or Ukraine be after we made such a move?

Simply saying "Putin bad, get Putin out" ignores everything that would happen after. The cost of us swinging economic muscle when our interests are not currently directly threatened. The line of kleptocrats looking to replace Putin and shake his strong-arm regime into an even more unstable mess. The question of whether whoever comes after Putin would be a Russian hard-liner still looking to push Ukraine.

This isn't about us. This isn't our party. Screaming that we must take action is ridiculous. This isn't in our backyard, we haven't been asked for help, we have no reason to intervene yet. We need to stand back and consider our options, and keep an eye out for options that have the most benefits and fewest drawbacks. Right now, all of our options have a whole farking lot of drawbacks and not much impetus to rush to any of them.
 
2014-03-03 09:03:22 PM

Mentat: LordJiro: I don't see why Republicans are so upset about Putin, either. I mean, he's a business-friendly, gay-hatin', liberal hatin' thug...Why SHOULDN'T they like him?

Check out Rudy Guilliani.  Not only is he insulting Obama, he's praising Putin's leadership style, and doing it with a smile on his face.


What does Putin have to do with 9/11?
 
2014-03-03 09:09:26 PM

Bloody William: Oh look, another thread of conservatives screaming "THIS IS ALL ABOUT US! OBAMA SUCKS!" while... not really paying any attention to the situation or the parties involved beyond seeing what Obama is doing and making sure they want the opposite of it.

Has Ukraine asked us for help? Has NATO asked us for support? Has anyone in Europe said, "The United States should really come in and solve things?" It's not in our borders, it's not in our backyard, and our allies aren't telling us to come in and do anything. What the fark do you want us to do, you hawkish retards?


The Ukraine envoy has very specifically asked for our help.  And we signed agreements saying we would help.  We've even signed agreements saying we would respect their borders, Russia signed it as well.  In exchange they gave up their 1,900+ nuclear weapons.

No country in the world will now give up nuclear weapons after this.  Putin is assuring nuclear proliferation.
 
2014-03-03 09:10:04 PM

Tatterdemalian: soporific: What precicely should we do?

Oh, there's nothing we can do that The One would let us do. He's in power, not the neocon warmongers.

What we should have done? Supported the Iranian Green Revolution. Failing that, we should have refused to support the Muslim Brotherhood's Arab Spring.

Since we already did both those things, it's a bit too late to worry any more. We're already off the cliff, and the only thing left is for us neocons to say "I told you so" until we hit rock bottom.

/but keep on blaming the Republicans
//that's the only thing you can do
///even though it will make picking up the pieces more difficult, what with all your accusing the people who know which pieces really matter of causing the crash all along


I do blame the Republicans because they are the ones who completely screwed up our foriegn policy last decade. They are the ones who ran up huge bills and did a lot of damage to our military and military readiness. They are the ones who pissed away a lot of international goodwill, and they are the ones who thought going into Afghanistan with a minimal force was a good idea and going into Iraq at all was a good idea.

Now, has Obama been too naive about foriegn policy? It's possible. he's certainly been too naive about Republican opposition these past 6 years, letting them run the table while he expected everyoen to behave like adults. So I can see that he also expected world leaders to be reasonable and not insane, to his detriment. We'll have to wait and see how it pans out, and I'm taking everything the Republicans say with an entire saltshaker. Chances are they're going to be proven wrong in the next few weeks, much like reality proves them wrong time and time again. This doesn't mean everything Obama's done or doing is correct, but I'm still willing to give him a 'wait and see.'

This is why I think Hillary would be a strong President. She's got the chops to handle these kinds of situations, but she's also not insane and wanting to start another war like most everyone in the Republican party.
 
2014-03-03 09:10:12 PM

Bloody William: This isn't about us. This isn't our party. Screaming that we must take action is ridiculous. This isn't in our backyard, we haven't been asked for help, we have no reason to intervene yet. We need to stand back and consider our options, and keep an eye out for options that have the most benefits and fewest drawbacks. Right now, all of our options have a whole farking lot of drawbacks and not much impetus to rush to any of them.


I have to agree.  This isn't about us or Russia, this is about Ukraine.  Even the Russian Ukrainians interviewed by numerous news outlets don't appreciate Russia's intervention and don't want us involved either.  Ukraine wants us on the ready, but most don't want us doing anything yet.  This is their struggle and they have to go through it.

Besides, why would we bail out a country who continues to sell specialized arms to Iran?
 
2014-03-03 09:11:39 PM

Bloody William: Ow! That was my feelings!: Bloody William: Oh look, another thread of conservatives screaming "THIS IS ALL ABOUT US! OBAMA SUCKS!" while... not really paying any attention to the situation or the parties involved beyond seeing what Obama is doing and making sure they want the opposite of it.

Has Ukraine asked us for help? Has NATO asked us for support? Has anyone in Europe said, "The United States should really come in and solve things?" It's not in our borders, it's not in our backyard, and our allies aren't telling us to come in and do anything. What the fark do you want us to do, you hawkish retards?

Shut up, play ball, and help push Putin over a cliff?

Okay. What then? What would be the direct ramifications for us as a result of such a power play? What state would Russia or Ukraine be after we made such a move?

Simply saying "Putin bad, get Putin out" ignores everything that would happen after. The cost of us swinging economic muscle when our interests are not currently directly threatened. The line of kleptocrats looking to replace Putin and shake his strong-arm regime into an even more unstable mess. The question of whether whoever comes after Putin would be a Russian hard-liner still looking to push Ukraine.

This isn't about us. This isn't our party. Screaming that we must take action is ridiculous. This isn't in our backyard, we haven't been asked for help, we have no reason to intervene yet. We need to stand back and consider our options, and keep an eye out for options that have the most benefits and fewest drawbacks. Right now, all of our options have a whole farking lot of drawbacks and not much impetus to rush to any of them.


I am not 'screaming' for us to take action. We have legit allies and obvious self-interests to protect. I'm saying we should be forceful in protecting them. If Russia melts down into yet another revolutionary period.....well, here we go again. The nukes and other wmds are obviously a concern, but we have no control over them anyway. Fark it. Russia is a Oligarchical State with a Godfather at the helm, it is not a stable or long term arraignment. It will end, violently and terribly, no matter what you think or plan or hope. Let's try to minimize the farking damage, to us and our allies, is what I'm saying.
 
2014-03-03 09:12:10 PM

Mentat: LordJiro: I don't see why Republicans are so upset about Putin, either. I mean, he's a business-friendly, gay-hatin', liberal hatin' thug...Why SHOULDN'T they like him?

Check out Rudy Guilliani.  Not only is he insulting Obama, he's praising Putin's leadership style, and doing it with a smile on his face.


And that's why Obama deserves that Nobel peace prize he got.  He's gotten hard-line conservative Republicans to praise Russky leadership at the expense of a sitting American president.

Truly, the man has worked a miracle.
 
2014-03-03 09:12:42 PM

Greywar: The Ukraine envoy has very specifically asked for our help.


Us, or the UN? Because as far as I can tell, the Ukraine's UN envoy asked for help at a security council meeting. That's a far cry from us as one country moving unilaterally.
 
2014-03-03 09:12:46 PM
To be specific, those agreements state that we will help in these events by bringing it before the UN.  Which we have.  Some argue they go further but I haven't read them yet.  I think its fair to say Russia is not sticking to the agreement, although theres a agreement that allows Russia up to 25K soldiers in the Crimea.....which they may be keeping under.  LOL.  But they certainly are ignoring the respecting of ukraines borders.
 
2014-03-03 09:14:05 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I made no reference to going to war. We don't need too. We can economically neuter Putin. Myself paying an extra 30 cents at the pump could happen because of a hurricane....or a shortage of Russian supply. The economic effects would be minimal in the US, they really would be. Europe....well....


I guess I interpreted "full support" a bit differently. And again, I agree on using economics to solve this problem.
 
2014-03-03 09:15:58 PM

T-Servo: Boojum2k: President Obama is trying, at least. He's a lot stronger on domestic and social issues, particularly now, but this is not his area of expertise.

I agree that the focus is domestic, just like Bush Sr was a master at diplomacy but had a tin ear for domestic concerns.

I'm just raging at GOP officials who go on air or print to blame the invasion on Obama for being weak, as if Putin's decisions (which most people did not expect) were not his own. The example is David Kramer, who was in charge of the Russia desk at the State Dept during GW Bush's terms, wrote a piece in the WashPost on Sunday and today was at the Atlantic Council in DC, grandstanding in front of the Moldovan PM about "US is weak! NATO must fight or the world will end!" (Of course, he has no answer to why Russia invaded Georgia in 2008.)

Yes, this is a test, but sniping in advance by McCain, Graham, Kramer, et al doesn't help when the US has to look strong. In our military contingency planning (much of what I do), we honestly don't care most times why the situation got bad, we just have to deal with it. So yes, this is a test for Obama, but playing politics really doesn't help.

And I'm especially sensitive about Crimea, since I was to help lead a NATO training mission there in May for the same officers now under threat by Russians. Of course that mission is now scrubbed, and we've been scrambling even to figure out if everyone is still on the grid (they're not). So when Sen Graham goes on TV to blame the invasion on Obama... I get really, really upset.

/rant off


Hell, if anything their partisan sniping is what really makes us look weak to the world. If we are so at each other's throat that we can't even pass a bill helping our military veterans, then we won't be able to put up a united front to oppose them. It just makes us look like our own worst enemy.
 
2014-03-03 09:17:21 PM

BalugaJoe: Turn on the WOPR.


Greetings, Professor BalugaJoe.
 
2014-03-03 09:18:58 PM

Bloody William: Greywar: The Ukraine envoy has very specifically asked for our help.

Us, or the UN? Because as far as I can tell, the Ukraine's UN envoy asked for help at a security council meeting. That's a far cry from us as one country moving unilaterally.


Both Russia and China have veto power in the U.N. As noted above, such legal dickery might serve for the moment, at the cost of ending every future chance of nonproliferation treaties.
 
2014-03-03 09:22:00 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: What he's doing is giving Ukrainians an common enemy against whom to unite, especially after the Russians start shooting.


You're forgetting about the pro-Russian Ukrainians in Crimea.
 
2014-03-03 09:22:05 PM

Greywar: To be specific, those agreements state that we will help in these events by bringing it before the UN.  Which we have.  Some argue they go further but I haven't read them yet.  I think its fair to say Russia is not sticking to the agreement, although theres a agreement that allows Russia up to 25K soldiers in the Crimea.....which they may be keeping under.  LOL.  But they certainly are ignoring the respecting of ukraines borders.


There's multiple agreements at play here.  With respect to Ukraine's borders and nuclear weapons, the Budapest Memorandum is the law.  May as well read it here and now, it's pretty short:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assura nc es 

Ukraine also has a number of bilateral agreements regarding Russian military numbers and movements.  In short, there's an absolute limit to the number of Russian military allowed in Crimea AND Ukraine must be notified in advance of any troop movements or it's seen as an act of aggression.  Russia blew the absolute number AND didn't give Ukraine a heads up on troop movement.

That said, I'm not sure why we're getting our nickers in a knot when Ukraine continuously sells advanced arms to our adversaries.
 
2014-03-03 09:25:22 PM
Defense spending down, nice plan by the bankers.
 
2014-03-03 09:26:05 PM
We spend 7x what they do on our military. If we can't wipe the floor with them then why the hell are we spending so much?
/don't want war with anybody.
 
2014-03-03 09:26:18 PM

Bloody William: Greywar: The Ukraine envoy has very specifically asked for our help.

Us, or the UN? Because as far as I can tell, the Ukraine's UN envoy asked for help at a security council meeting. That's a far cry from us as one country moving unilaterally.


Fair enough, they have specifically asked the UN.  I don't know if they have asked us specifically.

But yeah, Russias not honoring their agreements here.  Kinda funny if you think about it...the agreement says the signatories will bring the issue up to the UN security council....and all the signatories have veto power.
 
2014-03-03 09:29:40 PM

Babwa Wawa: demaL-demaL-yeH: What he's doing is giving Ukrainians an common enemy against whom to unite, especially after the Russians start shooting.

You're forgetting about the pro-Russian Ukrainians in Crimea.


No, I am not. Crimea is Russia's Florida.
I was talking about the rest of the country. It's one thing to be pro-Russian when
you're disputin' with your Ukrainian neighbors.
It's quite another when the Russians are invading and start shooting up the place.
They've had almost a generation to form a Ukrainian identity.
 
2014-03-03 09:30:42 PM

Greywar: Bloody William: Greywar: The Ukraine envoy has very specifically asked for our help.

Us, or the UN? Because as far as I can tell, the Ukraine's UN envoy asked for help at a security council meeting. That's a far cry from us as one country moving unilaterally.

Fair enough, they have specifically asked the UN.  I don't know if they have asked us specifically.

But yeah, Russias not honoring their agreements here.  Kinda funny if you think about it...the agreement says the signatories will bring the issue up to the UN security council....and all the signatories have veto power.


Oh, the UN's a clusterfark in its own right, but until someone says "Hey, America, you should do something," I don't think we should unilaterally do something. It's jumping to get involved in something we cannot really fix, and our involvement will only make things even messier. We can't be hasty in this.
 
2014-03-03 09:31:52 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Oh, what a whiny bunch of crap.

This is what I would do as POTUS. Total Russian energy embargo! Dragging every ally, especially and importantly must include 100% of the Euros! Even if it means higher gasoline prices in the US, help the Euros with their natural gas needs (summers coming anyway...). Full military support for NATO border allies, especially the Polish. And squeeze the Russians on the banking front. Economic sanctions are a real weapon that could be used on the Russians.

//And if worse comes to worse, full support for the Ukrainian partisans.


You're adorable. Ado-dor-a-ble

Putin's empire is propped up by exports.  Less than 2% of those exports involve the US.  Most of their exports are petrochemicals.  Most of those are purchased by Europe.

If Europe isn't on board with an energy embargo, it does not happen.  In case you weren't aware, the US is now largely energy independent.  That's why this is a much tougher decision for Europe than for us.  It is their backyard, Europe should be driving this train, they are not.

Once again, it is up to the Untied States to save Europe from themselves.  It's a crappy job, but someone has to do it.

Right now, German, France, Italy, and Spain are not at all on board with any sort of real sanctions.  The UK is not on board with any sanctions that impact their financial sector.  We cannot force Europe to enact sanctions.   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-crisis-us-europe - putin-crimeaWhy do you think Obama's state department rep said "fark the EU"?

Obama wants sanctions, heavy sanctions, he'd love an energy embargo.  Our allies don't want it.   Obama is pushing, and he'll push harder.  If Putin moves into eastern Ukraine, it will make Obama's work easier.

What is making this less likely?  The Republican leadership.

If Democratic politicians had criticized Reagan as he faced down the bear, they'd be declared traitors.  Obama is moving to debilitate the Russian economy.  Together, the US and the EU could completely fark up Russia.  Without firing a shot, we could destroy their economy.  But Europe has to be on board.  By attacking him from the rear, Republicans are empowering Putin, and making it all the more likely the Europeans will ignore the US.

You want to blame someone for a lack of action?  Look no further than John McCain, John Boehner, and the rest of the Republican leadership.  They're attacking Obama, because it's become a reflex.  They need to sit their asses down and put their country first.
 
2014-03-03 09:37:41 PM

Boojum2k: Bloody William: Greywar: The Ukraine envoy has very specifically asked for our help.

Us, or the UN? Because as far as I can tell, the Ukraine's UN envoy asked for help at a security council meeting. That's a far cry from us as one country moving unilaterally.

Both Russia and China have veto power in the U.N. As noted above, such legal dickery might serve for the moment, at the cost of ending every future chance of nonproliferation treaties.


the UN needs to put something into place to allow for overiding a veto when they measure vetoed affects a nation with veto power and they or a known ally veto it,
 
2014-03-03 09:39:47 PM

RandomRandom: Ow! That was my feelings!: Oh, what a whiny bunch of crap.

This is what I would do as POTUS. Total Russian energy embargo! Dragging every ally, especially and importantly must include 100% of the Euros! Even if it means higher gasoline prices in the US, help the Euros with their natural gas needs (summers coming anyway...). Full military support for NATO border allies, especially the Polish. And squeeze the Russians on the banking front. Economic sanctions are a real weapon that could be used on the Russians.

//And if worse comes to worse, full support for the Ukrainian partisans.

You're adorable. Ado-dor-a-ble

Putin's empire is propped up by exports.  Less than 2% of those exports involve the US.  Most of their exports are petrochemicals.  Most of those are purchased by Europe.

If Europe isn't on board with an energy embargo, it does not happen.  In case you weren't aware, the US is now largely energy independent.  That's why this is a much tougher decision for Europe than for us.  It is their backyard, Europe should be driving this train, they are not.

Once again, it is up to the Untied States to save Europe from themselves.  It's a crappy job, but someone has to do it.

Right now, German, France, Italy, and Spain are not at all on board with any sort of real sanctions.  The UK is not on board with any sanctions that impact their financial sector.  We cannot force Europe to enact sanctions.   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-crisis-us-europe - putin-crimeaWhy do you think Obama's state department rep said "fark the EU"?

Obama wants sanctions, heavy sanctions, he'd love an energy embargo.  Our allies don't want it.   Obama is pushing, and he'll push harder.  If Putin moves into eastern Ukraine, it will make Obama's work easier.

What is making this less likely?  The Republican leadership.

If Democratic politicians had criticized Reagan as he faced down the bear, they'd be declared traitors.  Obama is moving to debilitate the Russian econ ...


Well let's just nuke Moscow and be done with it.
 
2014-03-03 09:40:18 PM

grimlock1972: the UN needs to put something into place to allow for overiding a veto when they measure vetoed affects a nation with veto power and they or a known ally veto it,


Sovereignty. It's what makes a country a country.
 
2014-03-03 09:41:49 PM
The good thing to remember is the US is not going to get involved militarily.     No matter what happens, we are in no position for years to come to act.     We are not in economic position.   We have almost no political will.


That is a good thing.   Thank your lucky stars.   Because Sec Def. Hagel would be giving some of the orders.
Scary thought isn't it....
 
2014-03-03 09:46:13 PM

Bloody William: Oh look, another thread of conservatives screaming "THIS IS ALL ABOUT US! OBAMA SUCKS!" while... not really paying any attention to the situation or the parties involved beyond seeing what Obama is doing and making sure they want the opposite of it.

Has Ukraine asked us for help? Has NATO asked us for support? Has anyone in Europe said, "The United States should really come in and solve things?" It's not in our borders, it's not in our backyard, and our allies aren't telling us to come in and do anything. What the fark do you want us to do, you hawkish retards?


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/pro-russian-gunmen-tighten -c ontrol-over-crimean-peninsula/article17156341/
 
2014-03-03 09:50:23 PM
 
2014-03-03 09:50:34 PM
Putin is a power hungry madman. THIS IS OBAMA'S FAULT! He should have started WWIII years ago and he's a coward for not nuking the world.

/Conservatives in this thread
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report