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.

(Guardian)   We don't know who is getting sanctioned over Crimea or for how much, but we can all agree that it's Obama's fault, no matter what   (theguardian.com) divider line 236
    More: Obvious, Crimean, punishments, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Dmitry Rogozin, Russian oligarchs, unanimity, Russians, persona non grata  
•       •       •

1056 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Mar 2014 at 6:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-17 10:04:23 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:

As for Putin, I don't know..

Thank you

For what, exactly? What does it mean, to you, that Putin is not listed on the list of sanctions?

Because the man said these sanctions were imposed against those people responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. Seriously, you can go through all the machinations and excuses you like but the rest of the world is laughing (sadly) along with the Russians

[cdn01.cdnwp.celebuzz.com image 245x285]

Got me there. Guess that's your answer for why Putin wasn't personally sanctioned.


Because that would constitute a significant escalation of the conflict, and there's no reason to do that?
 
2014-03-17 10:04:54 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:

As for Putin, I don't know..

Thank you

For what, exactly? What does it mean, to you, that Putin is not listed on the list of sanctions?

Because the man said these sanctions were imposed against those people responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. Seriously, you can go through all the machinations and excuses you like but the rest of the world is laughing (sadly) along with the Russians

[cdn01.cdnwp.celebuzz.com image 245x285]

Got me there. Guess that's your answer for why Putin wasn't personally sanctioned.


It's the reaction to someone who thinks that what Obama did results in the world laughing but somehow doing nothing (your suggested course of action) would not. You make no sense. Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.
 
2014-03-17 10:05:51 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: Agatha Crispy: My course of action: Keep your mouth shut - it has nothing to do with your country. Now I answered your question, you answer mine - why wasn't Putins name among those sanctioned?

knuckler? If you're waiting for another apologist to white knight you I don't think they can.

LOL. You're impatient.

/and needy, apparently.

My problem with Obama, as a non-American, is that I really thought he was different. No more wars, no more torture. Instead, we have drones killing innocent families and the New York Times shows a picture of him going over the daily "drone kill" list, we have him supporting the overthrow of Mubarak only to see that blow up in his face, he draws a red line in Syria and then he's considered a hero for not going through with his threat. I hate what Bush and the Republicans did but as an outsider, when they say he's an empty suit, it's starting to resonate.


Wow, Brazil, cool. I for one would like to say I neither seek to condone or support Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine. I do understand the Muscovite mindset on this.Their history basically is the Muscovite Tzar finally winning against the Mongol Khans
( side note: in 2013 Russia/Gazprom released a movie about an Orthodox Saint from those days)

The rest of their history is filled with invasions in from the northwest, west and south/southwest.

Pussia is a paranoid abused child with a huge inferiority complex and sanctions are just gonna get us back to the cold war or worse.
 
2014-03-17 10:05:56 PM  

Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend: Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend:

One might conclude from this that you would prefer a return to Cold War-era international relations, where the US propped up dictators like Mubarak or Assad instead of interfering in other nations' internal affairs.

So the choice is propping up dictators or interfering in other nation's internal affairs? How about neither?

And this would constitute what? You said Egypt "blew up in [Obama's] face"; how was that to be prevented, other than preventing the ouster of Mubarak in the first place, or interfering with the subsequent elections and governments?

By keeping out of it. Why do Americans feel they are the policeman of the world and that they must somehow make sure everything turns out the way they want?


Um...we did keep out of it. You may be thinking of Libya.
 
2014-03-17 10:06:35 PM  
theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?
 
2014-03-17 10:07:12 PM  
 
2014-03-17 10:07:55 PM  

qorkfiend: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:

As for Putin, I don't know..

Thank you

For what, exactly? What does it mean, to you, that Putin is not listed on the list of sanctions?

Because the man said these sanctions were imposed against those people responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. Seriously, you can go through all the machinations and excuses you like but the rest of the world is laughing (sadly) along with the Russians

[cdn01.cdnwp.celebuzz.com image 245x285]

Got me there. Guess that's your answer for why Putin wasn't personally sanctioned.

Because that would constitute a significant escalation of the conflict, and there's no reason to do that?


So....why the sanctions? The US government says these sanctions are somehow going to hurt Russia. Isn't that escalation?
 
2014-03-17 10:08:22 PM  

Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend: Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend:

One might conclude from this that you would prefer a return to Cold War-era international relations, where the US propped up dictators like Mubarak or Assad instead of interfering in other nations' internal affairs.

So the choice is propping up dictators or interfering in other nation's internal affairs? How about neither?

And this would constitute what? You said Egypt "blew up in [Obama's] face"; how was that to be prevented, other than preventing the ouster of Mubarak in the first place, or interfering with the subsequent elections and governments?

By keeping out of it. Why do Americans feel they are the policeman of the world and that they must somehow make sure everything turns out the way they want?


You do realize that, other than making some comments, we pretty much DID keep out of it, right?
 
2014-03-17 10:09:03 PM  
 
2014-03-17 10:09:42 PM  

Nabb1: tinfoil-hat maggie: Nabb1: Dinki: dave2198: Do you know why the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russians?

And? The Tartar purge was reprehensible, but Stalin did lots of reprehensible acts. The simple fact is that now the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russian.

Good thing they ethnically cleansed the place, then.

Citations please?

/ I admit I have a lack of information about the Tarters since Russia took Crimea (circa late 1700's) and just that the Tarters wear a warlike tribal people that loved to ride fast horses and raid Russia.
//Oh sure call me ill infromed and "retadr" please.

No, I'm not going to call you names. I'd post some links but I'm
FARKing on my phone. You can Google it and I'm sure the Economist or the BBC or someone has put together a nice crash course. The Crimea was majority Tatar for many years before being made part of Russia and then Soviet Union. It held great strategic importance to Russia. The Tatars pissed of Stalin, who made them a target of his infamous purges. Years later, Kruschev "gave" Crimea to the Ukraine (largely symbolic at the time) and now, apparently, Putin wants it back.


Okay quick question and using wiki is no fare, when did Russia conquer, then annex Crimea?
 
2014-03-17 10:10:35 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?


Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?
 
2014-03-17 10:11:44 PM  
i would have preferred these sanctions to have come much sooner, but there are reasons they may have been delayed which may actually make them more effective - for example if they are designed to begin to establish some momentum, or for many other reasons
 
2014-03-17 10:12:27 PM  

theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?


Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.
 
2014-03-17 10:13:06 PM  

Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:

As for Putin, I don't know..

Thank you

For what, exactly? What does it mean, to you, that Putin is not listed on the list of sanctions?

Because the man said these sanctions were imposed against those people responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. Seriously, you can go through all the machinations and excuses you like but the rest of the world is laughing (sadly) along with the Russians

[cdn01.cdnwp.celebuzz.com image 245x285]

Got me there. Guess that's your answer for why Putin wasn't personally sanctioned.

Because that would constitute a significant escalation of the conflict, and there's no reason to do that?

So....why the sanctions? The US government says these sanctions are somehow going to hurt Russia. Isn't that escalation?


Sure, but it's still less significant than adding Putin to the list.
 
2014-03-17 10:13:28 PM  

Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend:

One might conclude from this that you would prefer a return to Cold War-era international relations, where the US propped up dictators like Mubarak or Assad instead of interfering in other nations' internal affairs.

So the choice is propping up dictators or interfering in other nation's internal affairs? How about neither?


The US is happy to prop up dictators as long as their on our side. We are also happy to over through a democratically elected government if it ticks us off or doesn't support us.
 
2014-03-17 10:13:39 PM  

Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend: Because that would constitute a significant escalation of the conflict, and there's no reason to do that?

So....why the sanctions? The US government says these sanctions are somehow going to hurt Russia. Isn't that escalation?


Not to speak for qorkfiend, but here's what I said earlier:  If I had to guess, the other dudes will feel some pain, maybe (hopefully) significant monetary pain and not like it one little bit after a while. Those dudes might be less supportive of Putin after a while. That might cause Putin some problems at home. Just a guess.
 
2014-03-17 10:14:06 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Nabb1: tinfoil-hat maggie: Nabb1: Dinki: dave2198: Do you know why the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russians?

And? The Tartar purge was reprehensible, but Stalin did lots of reprehensible acts. The simple fact is that now the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russian.

Good thing they ethnically cleansed the place, then.

Citations please?

/ I admit I have a lack of information about the Tarters since Russia took Crimea (circa late 1700's) and just that the Tarters wear a warlike tribal people that loved to ride fast horses and raid Russia.
//Oh sure call me ill infromed and "retadr" please.

No, I'm not going to call you names. I'd post some links but I'm
FARKing on my phone. You can Google it and I'm sure the Economist or the BBC or someone has put together a nice crash course. The Crimea was majority Tatar for many years before being made part of Russia and then Soviet Union. It held great strategic importance to Russia. The Tatars pissed of Stalin, who made them a target of his infamous purges. Years later, Kruschev "gave" Crimea to the Ukraine (largely symbolic at the time) and now, apparently, Putin wants it back.

Okay quick question and using wiki is no fare, when did Russia conquer, then annex Crimea?


Crimea was made a part of Russia in the late eighteenth century.
 
2014-03-17 10:14:42 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.


No, you were complaining about what Obama did.
 
2014-03-17 10:16:15 PM  
ukraine is an incredibly corrupt country,<b>Agatha</b>. it's been extremely poorly served by the soviet union and russia. russian aggression is a genuine concern for nato and hence the us. what is your point? do you have one?
 
2014-03-17 10:17:49 PM  

theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.

No, you were complaining about what Obama did.


Exactly, now you're getting it. He opened his mouth on something that doesn't concern him. He sanctioned Russian leaders but not The Russian Leader. What he said met absolutely nothing - that's my problem.
 
2014-03-17 10:18:59 PM  
you've got no idea what you are talking about, agatha. you don't seem to want to understand
 
2014-03-17 10:19:50 PM  
Everyone saw the sanctions coming; there were news stories of Russians pulling their money out of the US in anticipation.
Nobody's going to be seriously hurt by this. Barring stronger leadership by the EU I don't see much else Obama can do.
 
2014-03-17 10:19:53 PM  

theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend: Because that would constitute a significant escalation of the conflict, and there's no reason to do that?

So....why the sanctions? The US government says these sanctions are somehow going to hurt Russia. Isn't that escalation?

Not to speak for qorkfiend, but here's what I said earlier:  If I had to guess, the other dudes will feel some pain, maybe (hopefully) significant monetary pain and not like it one little bit after a while. Those dudes might be less supportive of Putin after a while. That might cause Putin some problems at home. Just a guess.


Basically. The names weren't pulled out of a hat; this list was carefully considered to be the optimal mix of somewhat annoying and not particularly serious.
 
2014-03-17 10:20:44 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.

No, you were complaining about what Obama did.

Exactly, now you're getting it. He opened his mouth on something that doesn't concern him. He sanctioned Russian leaders but not The Russian Leader. What he said met absolutely nothing - that's my problem.


And yet you advocate doing nothing at all... which apparently means something? That makes not sense.

What I'm trying to understand is that if your suggested course of action will mean nothing (obviously doing nothing will mean nothing), why are you complaining about something that you say also means nothing?
 
2014-03-17 10:24:41 PM  

qorkfiend: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend: Because that would constitute a significant escalation of the conflict, and there's no reason to do that?

So....why the sanctions? The US government says these sanctions are somehow going to hurt Russia. Isn't that escalation?

Not to speak for qorkfiend, but here's what I said earlier:  If I had to guess, the other dudes will feel some pain, maybe (hopefully) significant monetary pain and not like it one little bit after a while. Those dudes might be less supportive of Putin after a while. That might cause Putin some problems at home. Just a guess.

Basically. The names weren't pulled out of a hat; this list was carefully considered to be the optimal mix of somewhat annoying and not particularly serious.


Nuance? That's lib talk!

/or something
 
2014-03-17 10:25:19 PM  

Agatha Crispy: qorkfiend: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:

As for Putin, I don't know..

Thank you

For what, exactly? What does it mean, to you, that Putin is not listed on the list of sanctions?

Because the man said these sanctions were imposed against those people responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. Seriously, you can go through all the machinations and excuses you like but the rest of the world is laughing (sadly) along with the Russians

[cdn01.cdnwp.celebuzz.com image 245x285]

Got me there. Guess that's your answer for why Putin wasn't personally sanctioned.

Because that would constitute a significant escalation of the conflict, and there's no reason to do that?

So....why the sanctions? The US government says these sanctions are somehow going to hurt Russia. Isn't that escalation?


It's a step. Yes it's escalation but a small one. Larger sanctions can still come.
 
2014-03-17 10:26:26 PM  

theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.

No, you were complaining about what Obama did.

Exactly, now you're getting it. He opened his mouth on something that doesn't concern him. He sanctioned Russian leaders but not The Russian Leader. What he said met absolutely nothing - that's my problem.

And yet you advocate doing nothing at all... which apparently means something? That makes not sense.

What I'm trying to understand is that if your suggested course of action will mean nothing (obviously doing nothing will mean nothing), why are you complaining about something that you say also means nothing?


I hate hypocrisy. I hate empty words. I hate giving false hope. But it doesn't really affect you so what's the big deal. I imagine there were people in Syria, when Obama drew his red line, that believed that if the most powerful country on earth is on our side, we need to keep fighting. But then a shiny object distracts America and they do nothing. So now these people who kept fighting are dying in even larger numbers because they believed something your president said. But who cares, he was courageous for letting Putin handle it, right?
 
2014-03-17 10:27:06 PM  
you love talking shiat
 
2014-03-17 10:27:34 PM  

theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.

No, you were complaining about what Obama did.

Exactly, now you're getting it. He opened his mouth on something that doesn't concern him. He sanctioned Russian leaders but not The Russian Leader. What he said met absolutely nothing - that's my problem.

And yet you advocate doing nothing at all... which apparently means something? That makes not sense.

What I'm trying to understand is that if your suggested course of action will mean nothing (obviously doing nothing will mean nothing), why are you complaining about something that you say also means nothing?


Obama Derangement Syndrome is a Hell of a drug.
 
2014-03-17 10:29:01 PM  

Agatha Crispy: But it doesn't really affect you so what's the big deal. I imagine there were people in Syria, when Obama drew his red line, that believed that if the most powerful country on earth is on our side,


Islamic fundamentalists thought the US was on their side?
 
2014-03-17 10:29:55 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.

No, you were complaining about what Obama did.

Exactly, now you're getting it. He opened his mouth on something that doesn't concern him. He sanctioned Russian leaders but not The Russian Leader. What he said met absolutely nothing - that's my problem.

And yet you advocate doing nothing at all... which apparently means something? That makes not sense.

What I'm trying to understand is that if your suggested course of action will mean nothing (obviously doing nothing will mean nothing), why are you complaining about something that you say also means nothing?

I hate hypocrisy. I hate empty words. I hate giving false hope. But it doesn't really affect you so what's the big deal. I imagine there were people in Syria, when Obama drew his red line, that believed that if the most powerful country on earth is on our side, we need to keep fighting. But then a shiny object distracts America and they do nothing. So now these people who kept fighting are dying in even larger numbers because they believed something your president said. But who cares, he was courageous for letting Putin handle it, right?


You are suggesting that the Syrian rebels would have stopped fighting if Obama hadn't said anything?
 
2014-03-17 10:29:59 PM  
"If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is "Probably because of something you President Obama did."

FTF Jack Handey
 
2014-03-17 10:30:55 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.

No, you were complaining about what Obama did.

Exactly, now you're getting it. He opened his mouth on something that doesn't concern him. He sanctioned Russian leaders but not The Russian Leader. What he said met absolutely nothing - that's my problem.


Did you want more? Don't forget you live under the Monroe Doctrine and if Brazil ever looks at the US sideways well if necessary it will be a Marine/Airborne/ Naval restructuring of the Brazilian government if necessary. Granted the west has lots of money to start a revolution that ends with a coup, and loves that game. %0 year's from now you'll be able to take a European vacation on the Western bank of the Volga under NATO's protective sheild.

/That's what the Russ are worried about.
 
2014-03-17 10:31:19 PM  
Wahhh! America stuck thier nose in and I don't like that!

Wahhh! America didn't come bail us out and I don't like that!

Seriously crybaby, the reason we do it is because we might as well influence to our interests, you're going to cry like a biatch either way.
 
2014-03-17 10:33:03 PM  
it's not just fundamentalist fighting assad, but support for us intervention among the syrian people has been really, really low. i would support an intervention to take out the worst of the regime and the worst of the opposition, but a lot of americans don't and a lot of the international community don't. if you want to blame someone for the failure to intervene in syria following the ghouta attack blame david cameron who didn't whip his mps which took the wind right out of any coalition's sails
 
2014-03-17 10:33:25 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.

No, you were complaining about what Obama did.

Exactly, now you're getting it. He opened his mouth on something that doesn't concern him. He sanctioned Russian leaders but not The Russian Leader. What he said met absolutely nothing - that's my problem.

And yet you advocate doing nothing at all... which apparently means something? That makes not sense.

What I'm trying to understand is that if your suggested course of action will mean nothing (obviously doing nothing will mean nothing), why are you complaining about something that you say also means nothing?

I hate hypocrisy. I hate empty words. I hate giving false hope. But it doesn't really affect you so what's the big deal. I imagine there were people in Syria, when Obama drew his red line, that believed that if the most powerful country on earth is on our side, we need to keep fighting. But then a shiny object distracts America and they do nothing. So now these people who kept fighting are dying in even larger numbers because they believed something your president said. But who cares, he was courageous for letting Putin handle it, right?


Sarah Palin word salad response. Nice!

Focus, brother, focus!

Why is Obama's response, that means nothing as you said, any different from your suggestion to not respond at all? You are complaining about something that is equal to what you suggested. You do realize that, right?  Talk about the Crimea situation, only.
 
2014-03-17 10:35:32 PM  

Agatha Crispy: I imagine there were people in Syria, when Obama drew his red line, that believed that if the most powerful country on earth is on our side, we need to keep fighting.


I'm sure there were some who were foolish enough to confuse our opposition to the use of chemical weapons with support for the revolution, yes. Anyone who was paying attention, though, knew that the "red line" in Syria was exactly at the point where chemical weapons were used, and no further.

I suppose there are some who feel that anything the major powers say about chemical weapons, atrocities, etc. are just pretexts to engage in proxy war, and get confused by someone like Obama who, when he says "the use of chemical weapons is intolerable", actually <em>means</em> that and only that.
 
2014-03-17 10:35:43 PM  
and really, forcing the regime to initiate the process of getting rid of the chemical weapons was probably a far better option
 
2014-03-17 10:37:36 PM  

CanisNoir: Everyone saw the sanctions coming; there were news stories of Russians pulling their money out of the US in anticipation.
Nobody's going to be seriously hurt by this. Barring stronger leadership by the EU I don't see much else Obama can do.


I sorta hate you for making me agree with you for the first time ever(?), and the announced sanctions show the O administration is watching and has state futher sanctions could happen if Russia escalates from here. If the US, EU went full sanction Russia would just take Ukraine at least up to the Dneiper River.
 
2014-03-17 10:39:09 PM  
russia is going would like to take more of ukraine, one way or another, i don't think there is any doubt about that
 
2014-03-17 10:39:54 PM  

Mithiwithi: I suppose there are some who feel that anything the major powers say about chemical weapons, atrocities, etc. are just pretexts to engage in proxy war, and get confused by someone like Obama who, when he says "the use of chemical weapons is intolerable", actually <em>means</em> that and only that.


static.giantbomb.com

/for our mystery writing friend
 
2014-03-17 10:41:29 PM  

21-7-b: it's not just fundamentalist fighting assad, but support for us intervention among the syrian people has been really, really low. i would support an intervention to take out the worst of the regime and the worst of the opposition, but a lot of americans don't and a lot of the international community don't. if you want to blame someone for the failure to intervene in syria following the ghouta attack blame david cameron who didn't whip his mps which took the wind right out of any coalition's sails


Well, I'd rather keep that to a relevant thread but the US decision was to make Syria into Beirut a 10+ year war along ethnic/religious lines.

/Just sayin'
 
2014-03-17 10:42:02 PM  

theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33:  Maybe you should only comment on the politics of your country.

Which one are you, Ukrainian or Russian?

Maybe you missed it, but we're talking about how the US is reacting to things over there. Remember that whole "obama's sanctions didn't mention putin and that's bad" thing you've been pushing?

Maybe you missed it. I was talking about the US sitting down and shutting up.

No, you were complaining about what Obama did.

Exactly, now you're getting it. He opened his mouth on something that doesn't concern him. He sanctioned Russian leaders but not The Russian Leader. What he said met absolutely nothing - that's my problem.

And yet you advocate doing nothing at all... which apparently means something? That makes not sense.

What I'm trying to understand is that if your suggested course of action will mean nothing (obviously doing nothing will mean nothing), why are you complaining about something that you say also means nothing?

I hate hypocrisy. I hate empty words. I hate giving false hope. But it doesn't really affect you so what's the big deal. I imagine there were people in Syria, when Obama drew his red line, that believed that if the most powerful country on earth is on our side, we need to keep fighting. But then a shiny object distracts America and they do nothing. So now these people who kept fighting are dying in even larger numbers because they believed something your president said. But who cares, he was courageous for letting Putin handle it, right?

Sarah Palin word salad response. Nice!

Focus, brother, focus!

Why is Obama's response, that means nothing as you said, any different from your suggestion to not respond at all? You are complaining about something that is equal to what you suggested. You do realize that, right?  Talk about the Crimea situation, only.


That's sad. I thought you brought up some good points, there was no name calling unlike some of the other dipshiats here, and you go and pull the "you disagree with me, you must be Sarah Palin" stuff. I already told you how much I hated the Bush administration but that wasn't good enough because I questioned your mighty Obama. Good luck, hope you guys don't embarrass yourselves too much, and I hope this all ends peacefully.
 
2014-03-17 10:42:03 PM  
i was going to say 'is going to try.' poor brain
 
2014-03-17 10:45:07 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: 21-7-b: it's not just fundamentalist fighting assad, but support for us intervention among the syrian people has been really, really low. i would support an intervention to take out the worst of the regime and the worst of the opposition, but a lot of americans don't and a lot of the international community don't. if you want to blame someone for the failure to intervene in syria following the ghouta attack blame david cameron who didn't whip his mps which took the wind right out of any coalition's sails

Well, I'd rather keep that to a relevant thread but the US decision was to make Syria into Beirut a 10+ year war along ethnic/religious lines.

/Just sayin'


i don't think so. syria is about power sharing. the assad family has for forty years accumulated more and more power. the time has come for them to share it. they're not sharers though.
 
2014-03-17 10:47:59 PM  

Agatha Crispy: theknuckler_33: Agatha Crispy: I hate hypocrisy. I hate empty words. I hate giving false hope. But it doesn't really affect you so what's the big deal. I imagine there were people in Syria, when Obama drew his red line, that believed that if the most powerful country on earth is on our side, we need to keep fighting. But then a shiny object distracts America and they do nothing. So now these people who kept fighting are dying in even larger numbers because they believed something your president said. But who cares, he was courageous for letting Putin handle it, right?

Sarah Palin word salad response. Nice!

Focus, brother, focus!

Why is Obama's response, that means nothing as you said, any different from your suggestion to not respond at all? You are complaining about something that is equal to what you suggested. You do realize that, right?  Talk about the Crimea situation, only.

That's sad. I thought you brought up some good points, there was no name calling unlike some of the other dipshiats here, and you go and pull the "you disagree with me, you must be Sarah Palin" stuff. I already told you how much I hated the Bush administration but that wasn't good enough because I questioned your mighty Obama. Good luck, hope you guys don't embarrass yourselves too much, and I hope this all ends peacefully.


What is sad is that you have now twice avoided answering a simple question with some half-assed response/excuse. One more time.

Why is Obama's response, that means nothing as you said, any different from your suggestion to not respond at all?

Third time, in various forms, I've posed this question. Last try.
 
2014-03-17 10:50:55 PM  

21-7-b: tinfoil-hat maggie: 21-7-b: it's not just fundamentalist fighting assad, but support for us intervention among the syrian people has been really, really low. i would support an intervention to take out the worst of the regime and the worst of the opposition, but a lot of americans don't and a lot of the international community don't. if you want to blame someone for the failure to intervene in syria following the ghouta attack blame david cameron who didn't whip his mps which took the wind right out of any coalition's sails

Well, I'd rather keep that to a relevant thread but the US decision was to make Syria into Beirut a 10+ year war along ethnic/religious lines.

/Just sayin'

i don't think so. syria is about power sharing. the assad family has for forty years accumulated more and more power. the time has come for them to share it. they're not sharers though.


So you're against the US American monopoly of power buy the 1%?
 
2014-03-17 10:57:40 PM  

davynelson: HOW CAN the USA or anybody accept the overthrowing of the Ukraine government as "OK", but have a big problem with the Crimean nonsense?


The Ukraine protests were an internal matter carried out between Ukrainians.  President Yanukovych escalated the situation past the point no return, at which point he fled to another country, forcing a constitutional crisis that the parliament had to deal with.  The interim has already established a date for new elections which will give the people of Ukraine the opportunity to decide whether it was all worth it.

The Crimean crisis occurred when Russian troops disguised as local militia seized key points within Crimea.  Putin picked out a local thug Sergei Aksyonov and elevated him.  Aksyonov formed a group of militia who stormed the Parliament building, locked out legislators who were not sufficiently pro-Russian, and rammed through a sham vote forcing the referendum.  When the local Tartars declared they would boycott, they were hit with a carrot-and-stick approach in which by day Russian Tartars lobbied hard to get the Crimean Tartars on board while by night, local pro-Russian gangs marked the houses of the same Crimean Tartars.  The referendum itself was a sham in that it offered no option to remain in Crimea.  During the referendum, pro-Russian thugs made sure the wrong people kept their mouths shut.

But hey, I guess that's ok since Ukrainians in Kiev threw rocks first.
 
2014-03-17 10:58:25 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: 21-7-b: tinfoil-hat maggie: 21-7-b: it's not just fundamentalist fighting assad, but support for us intervention among the syrian people has been really, really low. i would support an intervention to take out the worst of the regime and the worst of the opposition, but a lot of americans don't and a lot of the international community don't. if you want to blame someone for the failure to intervene in syria following the ghouta attack blame david cameron who didn't whip his mps which took the wind right out of any coalition's sails

Well, I'd rather keep that to a relevant thread but the US decision was to make Syria into Beirut a 10+ year war along ethnic/religious lines.

/Just sayin'

i don't think so. syria is about power sharing. the assad family has for forty years accumulated more and more power. the time has come for them to share it. they're not sharers though.

So you're against the US American monopoly of power buy the 1%?


check the farkhives
 
2014-03-17 11:06:37 PM  
Look all of y'll saying why can't Putin just accept the Ukraine moving into the Western Sphere of Influence well you don't know or understand the Muscovite/Russ mindset.It's said really that a few comments from Churchill and Patton among others could really help keep Russia paranoid and worried about western aggression and well... sure Putin's now Hitler show me where Russia ever attacked before being invaded.... oh I would like to know.

/Difficulty no Soviet things like Afghanistan.I never did understand their strategic goals there except the where feeling isolated from western Europe.
 
Displayed 50 of 236 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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