Posted on 03/02/2014 7:46:36 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
If 75 wealthy people and drug cartels took over Mexico and sent hundred of thousands of people into the US illegally shouldn’t we . OK, OK bad example.
The foreign policy of the United States should be as tough as George S. Patton, but since World War II the Uniparty politicians have been building “world order”.
Afghanistan was just another high tech version of Vietnam with fewer casualties, started by the one the GOPe want you to believe was a tough guy, George W. Bush, and continued to the even weaker pusuit of the war and inevitable pullout from Barack Obama.
In the higher circles of power, the foreign policy of the US
has been deemed “bipartisan” since World War II, aimed at building “world peace” or “world order”.
This editorial from the GOPe editorialists at the Wall Street Journal is designed to have us believe the Republicans are tough guys.
After 9/11 if Bush had dealt with Pakistan who created the Taliban and Saudi Arabia the home of Al-Quaeda in a George S. Patton way, then there would a difference between the two big parties.
I have certainly learned by now there are no major differences between the two big parties when it comes to raising taxes and spending too much money.
EMOTIONAL RHETORIC IS USED TO PRETEND THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE A TOUGHER PARTY WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY AS WELL.
You would start WW3 over Russia reasserting control over Ukraine, with Putin undoing Khrushchev's unilateral "gift" in 1954?
PS to above: And before Russia, Crimea belonged to the Ottoman Empire, not Ukraine.
And before that, it belonged to Venice, not Ukraine.
Let’s get a diversity map of where you live and start carving it up.
Then you know what you do?
You send tons of military aid to those nations and you establish a real military partnership. Not treaties of protection, but actual military assets. You make Russia know that it will hurt if they screw with these countries, not give those countries the idea that they can just depend on us to show up and rescue them because they though they didn’t really need a military of their own.
That’s called playing chess. you move pieces so your opponent doesn’t move theirs.
Pls see 63.
Don't know much about history
History, is what we decide it is, what we tell you it is, and that we teach you to believe, because WE know better.. Oh, and we care more than you..
Don't know much biology
It's necessary to view the world through our pink lens, to understand the new world order.. Just think, hope and change baby..
Don't know much about a science book
Science, is evolving, without the necessity of peer reviews.. "Global Warming", "Gender Neutral", "Social inequality", is what we say they are, it's what we paid for with your money, doled out to our crony capital disciples.. We have more money than you do, so we have more scientist than you do.. It's settled, by sheer numbers, GET IT?
Don't know much about the French I took
Obama, learned all about the world in French classes, and decided the French had all of the answers..
But I do know that I love you And I know that if you love me, too
Just lay back, or bend over, whatever..
What a wonderful world this would be
Don't know much about geography
We didn't get that far at Harvard, so the Balkans, cold war, Eastern Europe, etc, sound like strange menu items, so that is left to Moooochle..
Don't know much trigonometry Don't know much about algebra Don't know what a slide rule is for
The economy is in good hands, because we know French.. Hope and change, remember?
What a wonderful world this would be
We don’t have to shoot it out with Russia anymore. What do you think all those space shuttle missions were about? Growing plants in space?
Obama will never use America’s shiney new toys, he just uses drones from the late 80’s and ‘91 Gulf wars.
And his reluctance has been calculated by some really nasty bullies in the global neighborhood.
Why not? After all we just announced that we will no longer have a viable military force to act as a deterrent. This is exactly why we should have the best military force in the world. This is the only real mandate our elected government has, to defend us, and Obama has announced he will not do that..Time for IMPEACHMENT.
Tell the WSJ to go stuff it up their rosy red. The Crimea is now and has for years been more Russian than Ukrainian with Russia’s warm water ports there.
The WSJ is sabre rattling because they see mobilization for war as a way out of the recession that they know we are in. It’s the Democrat way.
What I don’t understand is why, if Obama loves the UN so much, he doesn’t call for a meeting of the Security Council. I guess the UN only applies to US activities.
Also, why doesn’t he call for talks between the US, UK and Russia, who signed an agreement guaranteeing the Ukraine’s borders.
Possibly the best thing would be for the country to divide and the Crimea to return to Russian control, but that can be done without war.
Obama is such an idiot - but then, I guess the “smartest man in the room” (in his own words) doesn’t need to attend trivial things like security briefings, discuss options with advisers who hopefully know more than he does, etc.
He’s just winging it. Pretty scary.
Then we should be honest and say we will do nothing.
Susan Rice would be gobbled up and spit out at a security council meeting on any significant issue.
On the one hand, it’s fun pointing out how weak Obama is perceived on the world stage.
But on the other, is anyone here really interested going to war with Russia over their invasion of the Ukraine? I’m not. Hand it over to the UN and call it a day.
Source: Wikipedia
Busy place.
The US guaranteed the American Indians the same thing. Didn't work out well for them.
If this were a Military argument only, I would agree. But this is also about America’s word. The Budapest Memorandum stripped Ukraine of it’s ability to defend itself under the promise of protection by the UK, the US, and some minor other players. Never again could we calm a hotspot in the world by negotiation. Do you want to necessitate the use of Armed force in all future conflicts that have American interest at stake? If America’s word is worthless, it only leaves force (blood shed) as the future leverage. A good reason to keep our word, wouldn’t you agree?
Didn't we try to put in defensive missiles? Now you see why Russia objected. We could do it now as a bargaining chip.
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.