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 ...
(directed at Norm)...”Why are you even bad mouthing Obama? He is nearly being the total wuss you demand America must be, because of... you know, “consequences”. You should be cheering Obama!”
LOL So true...and sadly funny.
As always you ignore reality and refuse to answer questions.
As I said last night, pope are free read your/our posts and see the proof themselves.
What is it like to be alone in thinking our world standing is not at a historical low? Is it like dropping acid?
Edit: People are free to read...
And how often has one led to the other?
I answered your pathetic question just above.
It is you who didn’t respond to the answer. Cat got your tongue? Or is the reality that you are to the Left of Obama in foreign policy, hard to respond to?
Yes. Your lack of response to my answer is noted by any and all who are reading this.
And lets see the foreign policy success. You said we droned someone. There’s a difference.
Notice how they have avoided that issue over the whole argument?
...It’s about tougher economic sanctions, not war....
“And how often has one led to the other?”
Usually the war has already started, prior to the appeasing measure. Annexing sovereign land is an act of war. Russia sending in specops troops to prep for a land grab is an act of war.
History illustrates it well. Germany annexed Sudetenland and other areas. Was the appeasing action (meaningless treaties of promise not to annex more land) the cause of the war? No. The war had already started. Though appeasement causes more acts of war. Were the sanctions on the Imperial Japanse the cause of war? No they had already invaded many other sovereign nations.
Kinda like us going to the Ukraine and running an Occupy wall St type scam. Started like that you mean?
“Notice how they have avoided that issue over the whole argument?”
Actually the original argument is what you have misconstrued, so I’ll paraphrase as you don’t seem to be able to keep up.
You claim we should just “shut it all down”, our foreign policy, because Obama is an incompetent.
I stated that peole in the real world can’t stick their head in the sand an ignore what is going on, internationally. I stated that even Obama gets a few things right like drone attacks on Jihadist terrorists.
Now you are off on a tangent, as to the real argument, which was that our FP doesn’t stop because we have a horrible President.
For all to see I have given 4 examples of foreign policy by Obama (and yes that military tactic is a FP, when you go into the sovereign land of another country)...that was the right thing to do.
Against us?
Were the sanctions on the Imperial Japanse the cause of war? No they had already invaded many other sovereign nations.
It was the cause of their decision to war on us.
Acting against Russia without Europe is futile. And Europe has made it clear that they won't stick their necks out for Ukraine.
You sure you aren’t Jay Carney? Because you are real good at changing the subject every time you get backed into a corner.
Answer the question about foreign policy success and then we can move on.
Ponder this while you’re at it and see if you make any connections
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3150984/posts
“It was the cause of their decision to war on us.”
So your position is that nations can run roughshod over entire areas, taking what they wish, drubbing the people as they wish....and they should have no consequences.
If this is so, why can’t the US or other nations decide to not cooperate with oppressive forces. That is the natural order of good and evil. And appeasers can have their say also, but appeasers they are.
In the case of Russia, they have no intention to go to war with the US over sanctions. They are a fairly weak bully that won’t hit any allied countries that have formal alliances with us. Otherwise, they would have hit the much weaker Baltic nations.
Acting against Russia without Europe is futile. And Europe has made it clear that they won’t stick their necks out for Ukraine.
“but appeasers they are.”
As opposed to impotent chest thumpers that have yet to answer simple and direct questions ‘four times’ or even...once!
IOW, you think my statements that he is an enemy combatant are fantasies or ‘slight exaggerations”, and that he and his cabal of communist moslem lovers will do the right thing in foreign policy in this instance (right for American and other well meaning countries) unlike every single other foreign policy decision since he took office.
Well, at least you’ve made yourself clear.
You didn’t answer if you are hired or volunteer.
PS I am understating the danger of our rogue administration, not exaggerating it.
It’s greased.
“You sure you aren’t Jay Carney? Because you are real good at changing the subject every time you get backed into a corner.”
It’s not my fault that you can’t follow the twists and turns of a debate and keep the overall debate point in mind. It’s obviously a little difficult for you, because you just proved that you don’t know what the main debate point was and CAN’T differentiate secondary points used as evidence to support the main point.
“Answer the question about foreign policy success and then we can move on.”
I have answered it, literally, 3 times.... I will answer it a 4th time...and then you will concede that it is silly to shut down the US ForPolicy because you disagree with the President.
Here are 4 examples of Foreign Policy decisions by Obama that were correct. First, Obama’s weakness and concessions in his reset with Russia, partly are to blame for Russia’s actions in Ukraine. But since the annexation Obama has made 3 decisions that were correct ForPol decisions 1) He has not committed or hinted at sending any US military to fight in Ukraine. 2) He gave Russia an opportunity to extricate itself from the situation by offering token and soft economic sanctions with the threat of tougher sanctions if Russia persists. 3) He has offered up a second round of tougher sanctions with the threat of severe sanctions if further incursions ar made into Ukraine.
The 4th decision is seen as a huge success by most conservative analysts. The is the ForPol and political decision to use drones to go after jihadist terrorists, even if that means crossing into terrorist safe harbors across national boundaries, for example Pakistan.
Reagan Administration members and supporters saw that sanctions against the Soviet Union and its proxies worked. Even some Democrats agreed. But many high-profile Democrats disagreed, because they refused to acknowledge reality or support defense.
Sanctions against a nation will weaken that nation if implemented by a more ingenuous, hard working nation. If such nation has had a history of such strength but is lacking due to decline by way of decadence and tyranny by a non-technical political class, that nation will be forced to honor its real men again. That’s what many in anti-defense circles are afraid of.
Leftists, radical feminists for example, while arguing against national defense, have argued that for any measure to work, it must completely solve a problem and solve the problem all by itself. That’s a fallacy. Feminists have only used such illogic when arguing against conservative social norms. They haven’t applied the same lie to their own bandwagons—e.g., “stop domestic violence—another fallacy, in that they are the ones claiming that such violence can be stopped in totality by laws that helped to destroy families.
And in the contemporary West, there has been a strange alliance between such counter-culture associations, business, other political and academic interests. Corrections against that will be made one way or another. It’s an unnatural condition and cannot be maintained for long.
No one has argued that sanctions against a foreign enemy will stop the enemy from initiating aggression without any other measures being implemented. That’s the false, implied premise of the disloyal or pathological. The West not only sanctioned against the Soviet Union for over 50 years, but many westerners worked hard on many other efforts (many of those efforts in cooperation with friends who suffered under the Soviet Union) and remained ever-ready for physical defense.
Some groups of people in the Soviet Union sanctioned their own government by being more frugal and becoming more self-sufficient in stealthy ways wherever possible (examples: Czechoslovakia and Poland). The People’s Republic of Poland was sanctioned by the Reagan Administration because of its attempts to crush the Solidarity movement. The sum of various measures worked, because the Soviet Union—although capable of large military buildups—had glaring weaknesses.
And no, the U.S.A., although more corrupt than the U.S.A. was, is not nearly as corrupt as Russia. Russia is one of the most corrupt nations on the planet.
CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2013 (map)
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/
Sanctions do have weakening effects to various extents on despotic regimes, as do other measures. Such stress and its other effects are part of the physical reality of the world.
The argument against sanctions is much like the argument against anti-ballistic missile defense systems. It’s a fallacious argument stating that the measure being discussed must completely solve the problem by itself.
Sanctions have nearly always been used between warring nations. No single measure will defeat an enemy or defend our country and relative freedoms. It’s the totality of good and ingenuous measures that destroy his will to fight.
Ingenuity and hard work are needed for sanctions to be effective, though. That means hiring many more men in the U.S.A. and allied countries to do technical work and many others to become men in military training. That’s what many in office-bound, influential special interests are afraid of. In time, though, they’ll have no other choice.
Lets see...
“Here are 4 examples of Foreign Policy decisions by Obama that were correct. First, Obama’s weakness and concessions in his reset with Russia,”
A fail you admit”
“partly are to blame for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.”
Which I have argued exactly from the beginning
” But since the annexation Obama has made 3 decisions that were correct ForPol decisions”
Doubt it
1) He has not committed or hinted at sending any US military to fight in Ukraine.
The GOP and some dems are arguing for sanctions, arms and ‘advisers”. The logical and oft next seep is troops when the prior does not achieve results. History is filled with it.
I did not commit troops. you dis=d not commit troops. The committing of troops is nit a foreign policy success by any standard.
” 2) He gave Russia an opportunity to extricate itself from the situation by offering token and soft economic sanctions with the threat of tougher sanctions if Russia persists.
That is a foreign policy success? you call offering an ‘opportunity’ successful foreign policy? On what planet? He could offer tea and crumpets. What does an ‘offer’ an IGNORED offer, have to do with a successful FP?
” 3) He has offered up a second round of tougher sanctions with the threat of severe sanctions if further incursions ar made into Ukraine.”
An offer that was again IGNORED. Here’s a tip. When your offer is ignored, you don’t get to say you succeeded. Not on the playground, not in any foreign policy plan that has ever been written. That is what normal people call a failure.
“The 4th decision is seen as a huge success by most conservative analysts. The is the ForPol and political decision to use drones to go after jihadist terrorists, even if that means crossing into terrorist safe harbors across national boundaries, for example Pakistan.
Which as I already corrected you on, that ‘success’, widely rtumpeted by no one as a success, has instead pissed off a lot of allies who regularly bring up the haphazard use of drones ad sticking points in that bastion of foreign policy, the UN. Which is sorta the place that foreign policy stuff happens.
Noe, having shown yet again you have not shown a single provable actual ‘success’ I would ask you to do so. Because as shown above, you have not.
your very words show it.
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.