Posted on 03/09/2014 1:14:30 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Why won't you post an explanation of your objections to "Alberta's Child's" post? This is not Twitter. You have more than 144 characters to enlighten us.
-——a figure of considerable weakness.——
Actually, off the White House lawn, there is total weakness, no strength. Obama is not a lame duck, Obama is in effect a dead duck.
He is reduced to making bad speeches and pretending to issue executive orders that will mot be followed.
There is no longer a crisis in Ukraine. The government changed hands and Russia retook the Crimea.
I agree with your points. It seems to me that the neocons all over simply want the U.S. to act so they can point out how dovish the admin is. I have yet to see any real explanation, that involves the security of the U.S., as to why we should get more involved.
My apologies:
You’re speaking of the Putin Bromance crowd. I got the thread players mixed up.
Don’t you understand that “free and fair elections, popular sovereignty” are antonyms to “limited, constitutional government”?
1. Can anyone blame Russia for what has transpired over there in Ukraine? [Perhaps this is a rhetorical question. Still, I’ll answer it. Yes, someone can blame Russia. All clear-headed people blame Putin.] The U.S. and some European countries have been pushing to have Ukraine join NATO. [It was deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, whom Putin wants to put back in power, who negotiated a deal to join the EU, not NATO. Putin vetoed Ukraine’s joining the EU, not NATO [They are not the same.] Also, Putin is not a Ukrainian. The Ukrainian people took exception to Yanukovych bowing to Putin, and the Ukrainians sought to get rid of Putin’s toady.] That’s a ridiculous approach to diplomacy. [Your assertion that Europeans have been pushing for Ukraine to join NATO is not supported by any facts.] Think of this as the Monroe Doctrine in reverse (from Russia’s standpoint). [You’re keen to see things from Russia’s point of view, but actually you’re acting as an apologist for Putin.] There’s no way in hell the U.S. would ever have tolerated a situation where the Russians created another Warsaw Pact and added Mexico to the list of member countries. [Putin won’t be able to add Warsaw to a new Warsaw Pact. His hubris may include a desire to do so, but the Poles and others in Eastern Europe will not be bowed by President for Life Putin.]
2. Does anyone with any principles believe that the U.S. has any moral authority to dictate terms to the Russians? [So you’re cool with Putin dictating terms to the Ukrainians but upset with the US’s ignorant policies. Couldn’t you just work to change our government instead of being duped by Putin?] U.S. foreign policy now revolves around propagating a “climate change” scam and using discretionary foreign aid as a means to influence countries to homosexualize their laws. [I agree that these are wicked policies and not the duty of the US government. I don’t see it as any type of reason to be fond of Putin.]
3. The author destroys his credibility with this one statement. By any objective measure, the U.S. was on the wrong side of that debacle. In fact, the situation in Syria offered strong evidence that our foreign policy is fouled up from top to bottom — because it’s become obvious the U.S. has provided support for radical Islamic elements to thwart Russian interests around the globe. I’ll offer the idiotic military and foreign policy moves in Kosovo, Chechnya (one of our best-kept secrets is that the terrorists who carried out the Beslan massacre had strong support here in the U.S. government), Iraq, Egypt and Syria as cases in point. [You filled your posts with lots of assertions and no evidence. You’ve either a very fertile mind for conspiracy theories or you are purposely spouting Putin’s garbage.]
A...yes, I do. Unless you favor unlimited government and unfree elections, I believe a country needs to balance the values I stated to achieve the best effects, a free and just society with accountable leaders.
Explain to me the progression you see if Putin and Russia are successful in annexing the Ukraine? Further, demonstrate how that annexation will harm the U.S.
Thanks.
It's kind of pathetic when you look around the world and see real leadership in Russia, of all places, isn't it?
“In many respects this is a defining moment for the free world in the 21st century and for American leadership in particular. “
There is no leadership. Not on the part of the president and not on the part of the loyal opposition. Nothing. Nada. Zip. There is a train wreck ahead and there is zero chance of avoiding it.
You have perfectly described the "neo-conservative" big-government globalists who have polluted the U.S. government for much of the last 25 years. These are the @ssholes who are clamoring loudest for U.S. military intervention all over the world at every opportunity ... and yet they're strangely silent when it comes to matters like freedom and liberty here at home, the protection of our borders, and our God-given right to bear arms.
They can all line up to go stand next to the Ukrainians, as far as I'm concerned. I'll even pay for their airline tickets. I'll fly them first class, too.
Having said that, I will point out that Putin was the only thing that stood in the way of a U.S. military campaign in Syria whose sole purpose was to topple the Assad regime and replace it with a "popular government" backed by an Islamic faction linked to al-Qaeda. In doing this, the U.S. would basically be replicating the debacle it perpetrated in Egypt.
It might be a good time for you to step back, look at what has transpired around the world over the last 25 years, and ask yourself why the U.S. has been hell-bent on toppling largely secular governments in the Middle East on behalf of radical Islamic elements in the region. I'm baffled at how the U.S. manages to keep a straight face while waging a "war on terror" by destabilizing and toppling relatively benign dictators like Hussein, Mubarak and Assad ... while radical Islamic royal families like those in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are unscathed. I'm even more surprised that they've been able to con so many seemingly intelligent, conservative Americans in the process. Well, this is one American who ain't buying the bullsh!t our government has been shoveling for years.
The cult of mohammed is conducive to the global fascism that the banksters are jonesing for. Witness how quickly the "rebels" established a central bank in Libya - before the government was even toppled.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html
The enemy is inside the wire. Their commander sleeps at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I could not care less about the far enemy at this point.
Did you really call Hussein a benign dictator? You lost me there.
War what is it good for!
It is good for obama to move all his scandals and failings to the back shelf.
Actually, I've just done my homework and reached an inevitable conclusion here. It was just a matter of asking the right questions:
1. How is it that the Bush administration carried out a "war on terror" that didn't include the eradication of biggest supporters of radical Islam in the world (the Saudi royal family)?
2. Why is that the Bush administration was filled with "neo-conservatives" who never even mentioned the threat of radical Islamic terrorism against the U.S. before 9/11 but were considered credible policy makers when it came to carrying out this "war on terror?"
3. Why were so many of those "neo-conservatives" such ardent cheerleaders for U.S. military action against Serbia on behalf of an Islamic movement in Kosovo back in the late 1990s during the Clinton administration?
4. Why were so many of these same "neo-conservatives" supporting the Chechen separatist movement for years?
If any of this sounds wildly conspiratorial, just check the FR thread linked below that I posted on this very subject seven years ago:
For one thing, you didn't have widespread religious/ethnic cleansing of Christians in Iraq until after Saddam Hussein was toppled. Heck, he even had Maronite and Chaldean Christians serving in his own Ba'athist government.
Very well said.
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.