Posted on 04/30/2014 2:10:56 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Saying President Barack Obama hasn’t been tough enough on Russia, a high-powered group of Republican senators introduced legislation on Wednesday aimed at imposing new sanctions on Moscow over its actions in Ukraine.
“Rather than react to events as they unfold, which has been the policy of this administration, we need to inflict more direct consequences on Russia prior to Vladimir Putin taking additional steps that will be very difficult to undo,” said Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top GOP member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who drafted the measure.
The congressional push for a harder line on Russia comes with Obama set to welcome German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of his key partners on Ukraine, to the White House on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Also consider Putin’s No. 2 today said they will respond statement with statement, action with action. then told us to use a trampoline to fly to the space station.
So do you think they are going to pussyfoot around when Obama and the GOP start shipping food while Ukraine saves the cash for more weapons/other uses?
What a bunch of idiots these Washington politicians are. The only thing that keeps this Russian bear in the money, is the amount of GAS and OIL they are selling to Europe. Now, we have more GAS and OIL in this country, if only the government will just get out of the way and allow us to produce these products. But, maybe, they think getting us into a war with Russia and the Muslims is a better way to do defang the Russian bear.
You object to even sending food rations to Ukraine?
Look at some point one needs to draw a line between appeasement and a reasonable response. Where do you draw it?
Whether it be boots on the ground or sending arms or sending food rations or not doing anything for Ukraine, one needs to draw a reasonable line.
Whether it be helping Ukraine or all NATO countries or some NATO countries or not helping any country, one needs to make a reasonable response and a response that is not appeasement.
Where do you draw it??
A reasonable response by whose standard? We can be world cop or not. Binary. One or the other. We are a Republic or an Empire. Again, Binary.
At what point does America get out of the worlds business and tend to OUR affairs? A reasonable response to during a time of .1% (that’s point one) growth, a time when we are split 8 ways to Wednesday on everything, A time where every man woman child and government funded transvestite is over 100,000 bucks in the hole at birth thanks to sending the Ukraines of the world food and cash, a time when our borders are being overrun with govt assistance, a time when there are more scandals than any of us can name off the top of our heads...is to let other countries handle their own affairs.
If you find the above unreasonable or PROVABLY untrue in any way whatsoever, please detail your reasoning. Ukraine is not a territory or protectorate of America. It is as far away from America as one can get and still be in this hemisphere. There are plenty of NATO countries between us and them. Let them deal with it.
~Ukrainians defending their own country are of course not the same thing as Aztlan separatists invading our country and then breaking away from it.~
It looks this way from your perspective. Too bad there are many people who might think otherwise.
Agreed. It’s time to build up our defense and support our allies including Germany and Japan. That’s what we’ll do because of allied necessity for our mutual survival despite opinions of vociferous people in special political interests (special political interests: U.S. coastal Libertarians, U.S. coastal trade interests and all).
Most Americans today have never served in defense, have too little knowledge of defense history and don’t recognize the lack of consideration for consequences in leaders of initial aggressor nations (that is, criminality in such leaders of overly aggressive nations). They don’t realize that cowing to enemies would greatly increase the likelihood of nuclear attacks against our western nations in the near future.
Thank you, Berlin_Freeper. I dedicated my life to my country and to our allies long ago and will not betray that commitment.
Read the book “The Icon and the Ax”.
It isn’t as simple as many would like to believe. It is exactly like the Aztlan example I cited. The Russians view Kiev as part of the home of their culture, and they are right in many respects. The Russians living in what is now the Ukraine also take that view.
Blow back sucks. If we start playing in their front yard, don’t be surprised when they do the same to us.
Many people in our current generation of political chatterers fail to see that with the kinds of threats and movements of foreign despots, war will happen sooner or later. And the later it happens, the more dangerous it will be (re. current and ongoing military/nuclear buildups against us, expansionism, etc.).
That is one of the biggest problems the average non thinking American has. You nailed it exactly.
We never HAD to think about Russians on the doorstep outside movies and books because we never had a [resident and congress willing to let them get that close. Americans are ALSO used to us playing in everyone’s yard as if it were the most natural thing.
The founders warned against exactly this situation. And of course, as usual, several freepers an the Russia threads are far smarter than the Founders of the United States of America could ever hope to be.
If we start playing in their front yard, don’t be surprised when they do the same to us.
= = = = = = = = = = =
Yea, when the Rooskies place troops on the Mexican border claiming that we (USA) are ‘denying’ Mexican Nationals I would like to see the reaction of all these ‘Chicken Hawks’ we have suddenly ‘grown’.
Or wanting to ‘advise’ Mexico on how to handle its Oil Fields..
“We don’t owe Ukraine or their tire burners anything.”
It is in American security interests to counter the Russians when they go rogue. In this case wit economic sanctions that will hurt them.
“Let me know if they try hitting on a NATO country. mccain thanks you for the support.”
You better get in line with the rest of the pansy useful idiots, some don’t want NATO countries defended. Putin thanks you for your support, as does Obama, who you are to the Left of.
If we start playing in their front yard, don’t be surprised when they do the same to us.
= = = = = = = = = = =
Yea, when the Rooskies place troops on the Mexican border claiming that we (USA) are ‘denying’ Mexican Nationals their ‘human rights’ I would like to see the reaction of all these ‘Chicken Hawks’ we have suddenly ‘grown’.
Or wanting to ‘advise’ Mexico on how to handle its Oil Fields..
You’d probably have to catch some of them before the flight out. But when they got wherever they ran off to, I imagine they would advise the wrong plan from there too.
“I would love to see one ‘secure’ inch of Africa”
As long as we have free flow of chromium, it is not an American concern.
“SA is absolutely a natsec issue. those illegals are wrecking this economy and there are plenty of terrorists among them.”
Yes. But it is a domestic issue.
AS long as implies the potential for a problem. Thus it ain’t a sure thing. And that is a concern in ANY place.
It can be both. There are unarguable natsec implications.
“The worst enemy of the USA is the cabal that is pushing war.”
Obama pushing war? He is a pansy.
Obama is a threat to the US, but not because he supports war. That is a figment of your imagination.
Once again, the iso Liberaltarian perspective invents a strawman of going to war in Ukraine. Nobody is pushing for that.
Reagan would be rolling over in his grave, if he could read this website’s post.
~Bowing down to a pathetic rogue and weakened Russia.
If you truly believe that allowing Russia to steam roll weaker nations is in the interests of the United States, you are willfully ignorant on the subject.
It is absolutely in our interest to counter Russia. And the incessant moaning about “sending our troops”, when all the Republicans want to do is produce more serious economic sanctions...is a weak straw man argument from people who are either not conservative or are Russian sympathizing Useful Idiots.~
What do you think Reagan or Bush Jr would do?
“So do you think they are going to pussyfoot around when Obama and the GOP start shipping food while Ukraine saves the cash for more weapons/other uses?”
Our foreign policy is based on American national interests, not Russia’s. I don’t give a flying truck what the Russians think.
It is? Is it really? When did that change? I am uncertain how running an Occupy scam on Ukraine serves the national interest, how providing gins to drug dealers in Mexico , how providing weapons to AQ, how denying aid to countries over gay issues or a host of other things is in our national interest.
So help me out here. Or is this a situational ethics thing? Because I would hate to think that a staunch rock ribbed conservative Freeper would conveniently discount all those other national security issues and fixate on this one.
Because there are no national security interests these days. Just social engineering and personal enrichment situations as the above provides rock solid evidence for at the EXPENSE of our national security.
“What do you think Reagan or Bush Jr would do?”
Reagan would do what he did in real life against a much more powerful Soviet Union.
He brought them to their knees by making them spend on their military. He diplomatically worked with the Saudis to lower the price of oil and he played the Cold War game that the Russians thought they would win, better than the Russians.
To sum it up I’ll paraphrase Reagan. “...We’re right...they’re wrong...we win...they lose”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.